text:
Talk:Loglan

vedma
I just thought that I should note that, as someone who wasn't previously familiar with loglan, I found the arbitrary introduction of the completely undefined word "vedma" to be VERY confusing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.133.93 (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

22 meanings?
Or one can directly and precisely say any of the 22 different meanings of the English phrase "a pretty little girls school."

That has no meanings I can lay my hands on, though with an apostrophe added somewhere, I can pick out 12:

 * 1) a (pretty ((little girl's) school))
 * 2) a (pretty ((little girls') school))
 * 3) a (pretty (little (girl's school)))
 * 4) a (pretty (little (girls' school)))
 * 5) a ((pretty little) (girl's school))
 * 6) a ((pretty little) (girls' school))
 * 7) a ((pretty (little girl's)) school)
 * 8) a ((pretty (little girls')) school)
 * 9) a (((pretty little) girl's) school)
 * 10) a (((pretty little) girls') school)
 * 11) (a ((pretty little) girl's)) school
 * 12) (a (pretty (little girl's))) school

-- Smjg 14:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) (a (pretty (little (girls school))))
 * 2) (a (pretty ((little girls) school)))
 * 3) (a (pretty (little girls)) school)))
 * 4) (a ((pretty little) girls) school)))
 * 5) (a ((pretty little) (girls school)))
 * 6) ((a (pretty (little girls))) school)
 * 7) ((a ((pretty little) girls)) school)
 * 8) (((a (pretty little)) girls) school)
 * 9) ((((a pretty) little) girls) school)
 * 10) (((a pretty) (little girls)) school)
 * 11) ((a (pretty little)) (girls school))
 * 12) (((a pretty) little) (girls school))
 * 13) ((a pretty) (little (girls school)))
 * 14) ((a pretty) ((little girls) school))

Without an apostrophe, and keeping order in mind, I found 14. Maybe there are nonordered meanings:

 * 1) (a pretty little girls school)
 * 2) (a (pretty little girls school))
 * 3) ((a pretty little girls) school)
 * 4) (a pretty (little girls school))
 * 5) (a (pretty little girls) school)
 * 6) ((a pretty little) girls school)
 * 7) (a pretty little (girls school))
 * 8) (a pretty (little girls) school)
 * 9) (a (pretty little) girls school)
 * 10) ((a pretty) little girls school)
 * 11) (a (pretty little) (girls school))
 * 12) ((a pretty) little (girls school))
 * 13) ((a pretty) (little girls) school)

Though they make 27. lysdexia 16:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Assuming by "without an apostrophe" you mean "ignoring the apostrophe", then only the first seven of your 'meanings' are meanings in any sense to me. What does a pretty mean?  And as for a (pretty little), I guess it could be a variation of a little (of something, or in the sense of "slightly"), but as for whether it means anything in this context, maybe number 8 could make sense (as in school somewhat slightly belonging to girls), but that's kind of pushing it. -- Smjg 11:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * lojbab: Actually, later exhaustive analysis showed that there are 40 different meanings. A complete list with Lojban translations can be found at

http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter5.html in section 16 (at the end of the chapter)

 * You're talking at cross purposes with the rest of us. That list enumerates the possible ways in which the four predicates (pretty, little, girl and school) can modify each other.  This is somewhat different from counting the ways in which the English phrase a pretty little girls' school or a pretty little girl's school can be parsed.  In particular, that list completely disregards the English meaning of pretty as an adverb, and blurs the distinction between girl's and girls'. -- Smjg 11:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Since this claim has not been proved for over 2 years, I removed the reference to the number 22 from the article, leaving only '... one can directly and precisely say any of the different meanings of the English phrase "a pretty little girls' school."' -Pgan002 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments
This article is not very encyclopedic. It even contains a sentence with "you see", which is condescending as well. I can't fix up this since I have little familiarity with the topic, but statements about what is possible and not possible in loglan are patently ridiculous. You can make nonsensical statements in all languages - how is it different from Noam Chomsky's green colorless things? Also time travel tenses? Give me a break!

- lojbab (non-wiki user asked to comment on this page) opines: As leader of the Lojban redesign, I think that the article is fairly good up to the "For example" sentence that mentions the 'time-travel' tenses (which I agree is not the sort of thing worth making especial note of). The remainder of the article is, in my opinion, worded poorly and is sometimes inaccurate, in some cases seeming to be contentious. I would simply drop it. The only other feature of the language that it is important to mention, is that Loglan/Lojban has a wide range of words used for expressing emotions and attitudes about what one is saying, although unlike natural languages, these are kept clearly distinct from the actual statements being made. This is important to mention because the initial impression people have about a language based on logic is that it would be computerlike, and devoid of human emotion.

While the generic Lojban website address is useful, the site is very large. People looking for more specifics about the language and examples might be directed to the published introductory book (available for free download at http://www.lojban.org/publications/level0.html, so this is not really intended as an commercial advertisement) or the beginners' lesson book (as yet unpublished) in HTML at http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/book1.html

If someone does want to mention more about the features of the language, material from the introductory book is suggested and is usable under Open Publication License.

The only other wording change I suggest is minor: "although he released many papers about its design he never "released" it freely to the general public" is disputable based on the meaning of "released" and "freely". I suggest the more straightforward: "although he released many papers about its design, he continued to claim intellectual property restrictions on its use".

Something to be considered (I'm not sure whether this is priority for encyclopedias, but tends to be of interest to the audience that would seek information about Loglan) would be to mention that Loglan has seen mention in a couple of science fiction works, one being the well-known Robert Heinlein book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; another is Robert Rimmer's utopian "Love Me Tomorrow". Language inventor James Cooke Brown also wrote a utopian science fiction novel "The Troika Effect" that uses Loglan phrases but calls the language a different name. --
 * Kedamono I wonder if it wouldn't be out of line to mention that Loglan is used as the official interspecies language in the roleplaying game, FTL:2448. Kedamono 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Example
Anyone, an example? Like, how can I say hello? -- Taku 22:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

In TLI Loglan "Loi"; In Lojban "coi"

blanking?
"age after the split.

For example, you can lite"

 * Is there something missing form between those pargraps? - Omegatron June 30, 2005 02:39 (UTC)

what does this sentence mean?
"price would be botso with a little word to make price the first variable"

Cleanup
Removed the following claims, which I believe to be unsubstantiated, from the article: Other editors are of course welcome to reinsert those claims that they can verify.
 * that powerful expressibility for logic and calculation was a design goal for the language
 * that including expressive features from natural languages was a design goal (indeed, I believe the original intent was to make it as constrained as possible)
 * that Brown used "maximally stable phonemes". This seems to be a diachronic claim (that phonemes would not drift over time), and it is AFAIK not known by Brown or anyone else which phonemes this would be. I think this rather refers to the effort to reduce phonemic ambiguity (which may or may not have been successful)
 * that "the formal grammar was disambiguated mechanically (at first)". Sentences in Loglan may have been disambiguated using a formal grammar, but this was only done many years later.
 * that Loglan's lack of a verb/noun distinction is the oddest and most difficult thing for a speaker of Indo-European language
 * that Loglan has no objects, direct objects, indirect objects, possessive forms, or tenses.
 * that all arguments in Loglan are variables (it can have description NPs as well)
 * "After long use, the world has a sort of timeless, objectless, actorless flavor. Time words and location words fall away except when needed to make a point, usually with emotional emphasis.  It is rather easy to avoid blame for responsibilities in Loglan.  Scheduling is ambiguous because the tenses are optional."
 * that one cannot mumble Loglan
 * that relaxed pronunciation is virtually nonexistent

Other edits:
 * I have also removed some occurrences of "powerful", because I find it non-NPOV, and am not certain which NPOV term I could replace it with.
 * "Every language feature has standard, regular forms for acting in compounds." This probably tries to explain affixes, which should perhaps be described, but as it stands, it's just confusing.
 * Section on time-travel tenses in Loglan removed because I'm not sure if Loglan has ever had such tenses. Also, the example seems irrelevant.
 * Removed "even when run together, the language is still parsable." -- applies to any language, hence irrelevant. [Oh, yeah?  What about English "ice cream"/"I scream"? -- Jack Waugh 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]
 * Moved sections around in an attempt to make it flow better (but could probably still be improved)
 * Extended intro section to mention Loglan as the forerunner of many languages.

Please be aware that I am a Lojbanist, so I may inadvertently have inserted anti-Loglan bias.arj 01:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Loglan - Logging Language
I have found that there is another programming language called Loglan - part of Paradigm Geophysical's Geolog software.

http://www.paradigmgeo.com/objects/pdf/geolog_xv.pdf

RobBrisbane 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion request - examples
It would be very helpful to see some actual examples of Loglan sentences, with transliteration into English morphemes. -- Beland 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone graph a Loglan sentence for us? -- Beland 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Person is a short word
The Grammar section says "In Loglan, it is ... possible to say that John, a person, is literally a short word." So you can say that a particular person is a word. Why is this significant? You just said it in English, and I would guess that any natural language allows you to put together such a sentence, even though it is nonsensical. -Pgan002 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably has a different meaning that is hard to explain in English. All this talk of disambiguation and the author uses such ambiguous sentences. Ummonk 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it means that you can explicitly state that a person is an actual short word in the Loglan language. In English, there is no way to say "John is a short word" and have people immediately understand that you are actually saying "John (the person) is a short word", whereas this is easily accomplished in Loglan. Dilcoe 20 June 2007

This statement does need to be better written and explained. Kja er (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that the "joke" doesn't make any sense (or at least isn't funny) in English just goes to show that the thought processes in Loglan are fundamentally different to those in real languages, which is what it was designed to show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to understand
I'm finding this article very hard to get to grips with, and I don't think it's just my usual density! Above all, the article desperately needs some examples: just seeing a couple of sentences, with explanations as necessary, would make things much easier to follow.

On a more minor note, is it really necessary to capitalise "The" in phrases like "The Loglan Institute"? After all, I'd write "I read it in the Times today", not "I read it in The Times today". Loganberry (Talk) 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is very poorly written, even though I've studied predicate logic and should be able to understand the concepts. An important part of logic is defining terms clearly. What is a vedma? What is a "little word"? Is Loglan English-based or language-independent? Can we have examples? (Apparently not, since people asked for them 5 years ago with no response).CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The words I remember may be out of date, but here's an example. ei tu clivu le birju means "Do you love that which we have been referring to in this conversation as though it were beer (irrespective of whether it is really beer)?". For pronunciation, note that the letter "c" stands for the sound of English "sh" (otherwise, generally, the letters have the sound values of Latin). It is not necessary to stop between the words as German speakers do; you may run the words together in speaking them (in this example). The term "little word" in the English jargon about Loglan refers to structure words as distinct from predicate words and distinct from names. In this example, ei, tu, and le are little words. Specifically, ei is a question marker, tu is the second person pronoun, and le is an article. Although the example is a question, you may speak it in a flat tone; Loglan does not share the use of tone to indicate questioning as in English. The words clivu (X loves Y) and birju (probably something like X is beer made from grain Y by brewer W using brewing method H) are predicate words. Note that the two predicate words in the example exhibit a common pattern of consonants and vowels, and that none of the little words shares that pattern. Grammatically all predicate words are treated the same although the short English translation of one is a noun (beer) and the other is a verb (to love). ei tu birju le clivu means "Are you beer brewed from the lover (what or whom we have been referring to as the lover, irrespective of whether she really loves anyone) as the grain from which you were brewed?". lo murki ferlu lo tricu means "Monkeys fall from trees." (or is there supposed to be a marker between murki and ferlu? Is it ge?). The origin of the predicate words in Loglan was not only English, but also Mandarin and several other languages. Mandarin figured most, on the grounds that it was the most spoken in the world, and English figured second, with the remaining languages (I think Spanish and Arabic were in there) each having even less influence than English. I hope someone with the current knowledge and references will expand the article with the sort of information I'm offering here but updated and cited. Jack Waugh (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Linnaean vocabulary and borrowed names
The article mentions Linnaean vocabulary and borrowed names. How are those included in the vocabulary while preserving the statement "patterns of phonemes always parse into words uniquely"? In other words, what does Loglan do if a word contains a sequence of phonemes that already parse to a certain meaning? — Sebastian 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A name always ends with a consonant, whereas all native Loglan words end in a vowel. Also, when spoken in a sentence, a non-terminal name must be followed by a short pause to ensure that the name is not interpreted as the first part of a Loglan word. CodeTalker (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The current situation is that Linnaean vocabulary no longer has a special status. Steve Rice noted in Loglan 3 that the Linnaean construction has a general use as a way to handle foreign names and my current opinion (Im the "CEO" of the Loglan Institute) which I think is shared by the people I talk to about the language, is that this is the proper use of the lao construction. I was just thinking about this because we are working on the dictionary: it is full of special references to the Linnaean vocabulary, which I have no objection to preserving, but I think a key to dictionary terminology should mention that grammatically these should simply be construed as foreign names. Randall Holmes (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits
Contributors to this page may be interested in a proposal to create a new Category:Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits, which would presumably include Loglan. Discussion is found at Talk:Psychology. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mismatch in IPA
Under the Loglan alphabet table, the letter R is listed as being pronounced as a rolling /r/ while under the consonant table, it is the tapped /ɾ/. Anyone knows which one should be the correct one? I know nothing about Loglan, I only stumbled upon a mention of Loglan in a book for a school assignment.

 * The Loglan dictionary (Loglan 4 & 5) describes the pronunciation of "r" as "as in 'rot' or as 'er' in 'father'". The latter is probably confusing for speakers of non-rhotic dialects, but it's clear the intended pronunciation is as the normal English "r" sound. So I've changed the article to make both instances be the alveolar approximant "ɹ". However it's worth noting that as a general principle Loglan is very forgiving of regional "accents", so pronouncing this as any type of "r" sound would be acceptable, as long as it can't be confused with another sound such as /d/. CodeTalker (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope I am not violating editing practices by inserting my reply here. I'm Randall Holmes, the current "CEO" (not my choice of title) of the Loglan Institute, so I do have some standing to comment. It is stated in the Loglan literature that the phonetic value of the letter r may be any of these values. Randall Holmes (talk)

Jim Brown gives a frightening array of strange alternative ways to pronounce Loglan, most of which I do not endorse, myself. I think that the responsibility of a Loglan speaker, where possible variations do exist, is to be understandable: the same variant sound should be used (or the same set of variant sounds chosen to depend on context) by the same speaker. The places where I think variation is reasonable are in the pronunciation of  y  (something more definite than schwa, such as the oo in English "look", or, exotically, the sound expressed by the Cyrillic letter that looks like bI, might be preferred), the pronunciation of  h  (the hard ch of Scottish loch is a useful variant, in particular because it makes syllable final position of this phoneme possible) and the pronunciation of  r  which is under discussion, simply because this letter suggests different sounds to speakers of various national languages or even dialects within the same language: I wouldn't attempt to use anything but the standard American sound myself. Randall Holmes (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The use of "Loglan"
I do not think that any current participant in the activities of the Loglan Institute objects to referring to le sorme lengu (the sister language, Lojban) as Loglan. We refer to our own language as Loglan, of course, but I call it "TLI Loglan" when necessary for disambiguation, and I am the "CEO" (not my choice of title!) of the Loglan Institute. I believe and hope that ill will between the language communities is a thing of the past: a large proportion of the small population of Loglanists are also Lojbanists. Randall Holmes (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Loglan


text:
Category:Liberal organizations

This category is an attempt to list liberal organisations, not being parties or youth organisations/foundations affiliated to parties. They should be listed in the Category Liberal parties

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Liberal organizations


text:
Anthony Nesty

Anthony Conrad Nesty (born November 25, 1967) is a former competition swimmer from Suriname who was an Olympic gold medallist in the 100-metre butterfly event in 1988. He is currently the head coach of the Florida Gators men's and women's swim team at the University of Florida, where he attended school.

In Sept. 2023, Nesty was named to be the Head Coach for the US Men's Swimming team at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris.

Early years
Anthony Nesty was born in Port of Spain in 1967, the youngest of five children in his family. Nesty's family migrated to Suriname when he was seven months old, and he started swimming at the age of 5. Nesty trained and competed in Suriname and the Caribbean through the beginning of his teenage years. He represented Suriname along with his sister, Pauline, at the 1983 Pan American Games. After placing twenty-first in the 100-metre butterfly at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles at just 16 years old, Nesty enrolled in The Bolles School in Jacksonville, Florida, a prep school with an athletic program known for training elite, world-class swimmers. While training under Bolles coach Gregg Troy, Nesty broke the prep school 100-yard butterfly record held by Pablo Morales. Breaking Morales's record was the beginning of prominent successes for Nesty. He graduated from the Bolles School in 1987.

International swimming career
Nesty returned to international competition at the 1987 Pan American Games in Indianapolis, Indiana, winning a gold medal in the 100-metre butterfly and a bronze medal in the 200-metre butterfly.

At the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea, Nesty edged American favorite Matt Biondi by one one-hundredth of a second to win the 100-metre butterfly; he finished the event in 53.00 seconds and Biondi in 53.01. Nesty is the only Olympic medal winner from Suriname and after winning his Olympic gold medal, he was unbeaten in the 100-metre butterfly event for three years. Nesty was the first black male athlete and only the second black athlete to win an individual Olympic medal in swimming following Enith Brigitha at the 1976 Summer Olympics, and only the second South American swimmer to win an Olympic gold medal after Alberto Zorrilla in the 1928 Summer Olympics.

Nesty's victory in Seoul was a momentous social and political event for Afro-Caribbeans. The Suriname government commemorated his gold-medal performance on a stamp and on gold and silver coins. A 25-guilders bank note portraying an illustration of a butterfly swimmer was printed in his honor. Surinam Airways named one of its planes after Nesty (this plane was destroyed in an accident while operating as Surinam Airways Flight 764), and the indoor stadium in Paramaribo was renamed for him.

Nesty won gold medals in the 100-metre butterfly at the Goodwill Games in 1990 and the FINA World Aquatics Championships in 1991. At the 1991 Pan American Games in Havana, Cuba, he again won a gold medal in 100-metre butterfly and a silver in the 200-metre butterfly. He attempted to defend his 1988 Olympic gold medal in the 100-metre butterfly at the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain, but finished with a third-place bronze. At the 2008 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, while long retired from competition as an athlete himself, Nesty was invited to be Suriname's flag bearer at the opening ceremony.

Nesty was inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame (ISHOF) as an "Honor Swimmer" in 1998, and the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame as a "Gator Great" in 2002.

College swimming career
After winning his gold medal in Seoul, Nesty accepted an athletic scholarship to attend the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where he enjoyed a successful swimming career with the Florida Gators swimming and diving team under coach Randy Reese and coach Skip Foster from 1989 to 1992. During his four years of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) competition, he won three consecutive NCAA individual championships in the 100-yard butterfly (1990, 1991, 1992), one in the 200-yard butterfly (1990), and one as a member of the team's 400-yard medley relay team (1991), and received sixteen All-American honors. Nesty also won eleven Southeastern Conference (SEC) titles—five in individual races and six as a member of Gators relay teams.

Nesty graduated from the University of Florida with his bachelor's degree in 1994.

Coaching career
In the mid 1990s, Nesty returned to the Bolles School as a member of the swim coaching staff, while also serving as head coach at Nease High School in Jacksonville.

Nesty was named the Assistant Men's Coach for University of Florida in 1998 and associate head coach for the Florida Gators men's swimming team in 2006. On April 13, 2021, the university announced that Nesty would henceforth also be head coach of the Florida Gators women's swimming team. In November 2021, Caeleb Dressel would move under Nesty's college group at the University of Florida from his former long-time coach Gregg Troy. Notable swimmers currently under Nesty's direction include Katie Ledecky, Bobby Finke, and Kieran Smith.

In June 2021, Nesty was named Assistant Coach to the U.S. Men's Olympic Swim Team. In February 2022, he was named Head Coach of the U.S. Men's Swim Team for the 2022 FINA World Championships in Budapest.

In September of 2023, Nesty was named to be the Head Coach for the US Men's team at the 2024 Summer Olympics to be held in Paris, France, with Todd DeSorbo to be Women's Head Coach.

title: Anthony Nesty


text:
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates
Jc37 has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage others to do their own review. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. come from? I can't find that text on Copyright problems. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikiblame shows that was added by @Pppery with this edit in March 2022. The edit summary cites Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 13, the titular question remained unresponded to for almost three months. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of that edit was to reflect reality - pages are in fact being deleted through that process, with the most recent example being Copyright problems/2023 July 29. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not because of any seven day rule, though, is it? Anything at CP could be deleted at any time. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Copyright problems, there is a de-facto 7 day rule. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the paragraph to be more precise. Articles are only deleted after 7 days if they qualify for presumptive deletion. I was confused since merely being listed there doesn't qualify an article for deletion... SportingFlyer  T · C  21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes
I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.

This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.

I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion  The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is well thought out and very neutrally worded. Excellent work by those involved. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Revert to 2011 process
"If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Proposed deletion. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
 * relisting the discussion.
 * closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
 * closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
 * soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD, but is a function of WP:AFD and not inhibited by previous PRODs. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1)
Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2: Disallow soft deletion for previous PROD
"If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Proposed deletion. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
 * relisting the discussion.
 * closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
 * closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
 * soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2)
Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3: Allow at admin discretion (clarify wording)
"Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion, WP:BLPPROD, or declined speedy deletion request, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at Articles for deletion that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3)
This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

General discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes)
My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true: Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The following people/places were notified of the discussion at least 7 days ago:
 * The editors placing, endorsing (if applicable) and removing the PROD template
 * Editors (excluding bots, blocked editors and IP editors) who have commented on the talk page in the last ~year
 * Any relevant WikiProjects (presence on an article alerts list counts as a notification for this purpose)
 * The nomination has been added to relevant deletion sorting list(s).
 * The nomination was made for reasons that are unambiguously different and/or additional to the reasons for the PROD.
 * The previously declined PROD has been noted on the discussion page for at least 5 days

 * That's great input, thanks. To be clear, anyone here can propose new options. I'm just trying to finesse some wordings for a future RFC, and I can definitely see an interest in preventing abuse of process though this suggestion is fairly complex. As far as preventing "double jeapordy", one idea I mulled over but didn't write up here was adding a statute of limitations for how old a PROD could be to block soft deletion. The article that prompted this, Miss American Beauty 1963, was PRODded and deprodded within an hour of its creation in 2009, and has been entirely unsourced for the entire 15-year article history. I think allowing soft deletion on articles that haven't been PRODded within the last 1, 2, or 5 years might be a different path that could filter out articles that are likely to have anyone interested in them. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I am in favor of Option 2. I have always had a close interpretation of soft deletion, i.e. we should literally pretend that the nominator, instead of starting an AfD, had instead tagged the article for PROD. In response to 's third point, there is no exception that allows an article to be PROOed a second time just because the reason is different from the first. Personally I think it is easier to just keep the procedure as simple as possible. And since soft deletion allows anyone to request a REFUND for any reason whatsoever, the PROD removal can be assumed to be a standing REFUND request regardless of the reason. Now if we want to expand soft deletion based on some criteria as states, I'm not inherently opposed as long as we do the same for PROD - basically, for me, the rules should be exactly the same for the two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @King of Hearts That's a good point and removing that bullet does simplify matters (especially as it's the most subjective one). I think option 2 is closest to what I think should be happening in the absence of consensus to expand - and I'm not opposed to tying that in to expansion of PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unlinking list items in AfD closures
Hi! Not structuring this in any formal way as it's a discussion that may or may not lead to an RfC. If the format needs tweaking for ease of editing, feel free.

Coming here at @Usedtobecool's suggestion following the Nth discussion about what action should be taken by patrolling administrators as far as removing links when closing an AfD. It's a broader discussion than Liz or I (and I'm sure every admin who closes discussions has had their action queried or reverted) so bringing it somewhere more central.

As I said on Liz's page, it's because there doesn't appear to be community consensus on what is generally right. There are cases where there is:
 * Copyright / Ad, those particular articles are problematic but there could be an article on X topic, so leave it linked.
 * AfD has closed as Subject Y isn't notable/it's not a case of Too Soon and they're mentioned in text, un link.

Where the biggest confusion I've seen is if the person (generally) is mentioned in a list. If it's blue links only, they should be removed. But if it's comprehensive, they should remain? Is there clear guidance here? Is there a solution. Thoughts?

Courtesy who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience. Star  Mississippi  15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My knee-jerk reaction is to wonder why an admin cannot take a minute or two to evaluate whether these links should be delinked or removed. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Two possible reasons: not enough admins doing deletion, automated tools that can't evaluate case by case. Usedtobecool ☎ 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no rush to get through as many deletion discussions as quickly as possible, so your first point is somewhat irrelevant. Second, if I remember correctly XFDC does provide the option between unlinking and removal, as does Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the question is relevant to CSD and PROD as well. Not sure if that would change the math somewhat. Usedtobecool ☎ 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Twinkle deletes first and then offers the option to unlink, so speed for those is also not really a factor. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all I got.
 * I think "you should take the time" is the ideal case and can be said about almost any question, while not as often being exactly practical. So, to give an answer for the "general" case, I lean towards unlinking per WP:REDNO (except where there was consensus the topic is notable). That's as far as admins need go, while they are performing another administrative task. You can leave the rest to editors of that article. If they want to link it somewhere else or even redlink it, they can. If it happens to be a bluelinks only list, editors there are free to remove the entry. If they have questions, they can ask the admin. If they revert the admin, the admin can just ignore it. These controversies will arise, if infrequently, even when you take the time like Primefac advises. The solution is the same: answer queries, ignore reverts. Usedtobecool ☎ 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is 100% valid @Primefac. The broader issue I have run into is editors have opinions that may differ from that of the admin.
 * I've run into this with athletes. Following the 2022? change, these athletes are no longer deemed notable but editors still want to preserve the lists and links out of a hope consensus will go back.
 * XFDC makes it easy to make the choice, but not necessarily know what the correct one is. I'm not a high volume discussion closer so I run into it less, but I'd like to action it correctly and not run into it at all. Star   Mississippi  17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, there will always be someone who complains about certain edits, and we all make mistakes. I certainly don't expect an admin dealing with XFD closures to be right 100% of the time, nor do I think there is one "right way" to do it. I just think that if admins are taking the time to consider what they're doing, they will make fewer "mistakes".
 * As far as the original question goes, I think there are general guidelines for removal, namely "is on a list of Notable things" means removal, "this is a list of every thing ever" would not. Dabs fall into the former category, as do alumni (and likely most groups of individuals/people). But, there are always going to exceptions and local consensus for certain pages to keep redlinked entries; I don't really know if we would be able to get a policy passed on the matter. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the only policy we could apply universally would be cases where the AfD closed as delete (not redirect or merge) for lack of notability (not copyright, TNT, etc) and the list explicitly disallows redlinks. In these cases, remove the entry unless it can be adjusted/reworded to link to a relevant extant article without duplicating another entry (for disambiguation pages, see WP:DABMENTION).
 * In all other cases, judgement needs to be used. Don't remove the entry unless that would be an unambiguous improvement, consider noting the matter on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin relisting disclosure
The section "Non-administrators closing discussions" says: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the ("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure. In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?

Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to XfD relist and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Would disclosure of non-admin status when relisting convey any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so; relisting just moves the tiles around on the board, so it doesn't really matter who does it. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I fit to perform non admin closures
Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. Toadette Edit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-admin closures are permitted. Given some of the concerns that have been raised recently, I suggest starting with the most obvious/clear cases for closure for now. If you're not sure about a close, I highly recommend asking an admin for their opinion on the matter (though make sure it's an admin that regularly works that area). Primefac (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
Deletionlist, which is transcluded by all deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on AfD's instructions:
 * Deletion sorting
 * Once listed, a link to the deletion discussion can, optionally, also be added to an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent [X]fD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the complete list of categories.

(you can transclude all venues with WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)) MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended. Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue. Nickps (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Nickps (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I have changed the words category/categories in that paragraph at Afd to list/lists, as it was confusing to refer to categories.
 * The paragraph below it "Notifying WikiProjects" explains the modern system of Article Alerts, which are automated. Deletion sorting is an older mechanism which I view as largely superseded by Alerts. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While you may view deletion sorting as superseded, that doesn't change the fact that it's still widely used in AfD. Looking at today's AfD submissions almost all of them are listed in at least one deletion sorting list. So, other editors seem to disagree with your view that deletion sorting is superseded by Alerts and prefer to use both. Since that is the case, I think that the other venues should follow the example AfD sets and use deletion sorting more widely as well. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is... DOES this work on other XfD pages? I spend my time mostly on the RfD page, and unlike on AfD (where EVERY submission gets tagged for deletion sorting), I haven't seen anyone use it in RfD in my time as an editor. If it does, indeed, work, then yes indeed instructions to do so SHOULD be added to RfD and other XfD pages-- I don't see why, for example, Redirects for discussion shouldn't be sorted under the "Denmark", "Politics", and "Sexuality and Gender" topics. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunamann Well, WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark has a dedicated section for redirects, so it works. The other two don't at the moment but I don't think there is a technical reason for that. It's more that no one has added them yet. Nickps (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Nickps (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm immediately noticing that, while there's a link to the RfD page on all three, it's not actually transcluded on the page the way the AfD discussions are. Is that simply a technical limitation, or something else at play? (And further-- the page notes that a bot will automatically remove AfD discussions from the lists once they're closed. I'm... guessing it won't do that for other XfD discussions, like this RfD discussion...) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I just forgot that WP:SELTRANS exists. All three are transclusions now. You're probably right about the bot though. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no need for special instructions...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunamann: (Let me know if I don't need to ping you) Yes, you're right. Turns out it's actually really complicated to get it working (mostly because every venue does things slightly differently). So, I made a template for it at User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder. I don't really know how to write templates so it's really jank but it works. If you want to test it, you might need to purge refresh the page after saving your edit to see the transclusion. That happens even if you use #section-h directly, it's not something my template causes.So, the instructions can look like (bolded part is my addition, the rest is from WP:AFDHOWTO):"If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more 'deletion sorting lists'. To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a  template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done." changed how the template works Nickps (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review. Nickps (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will give it a test run later on, will be doing a couple things IRL, but this looks good! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gave it a test run, seems to work flawlessly at least for RfD. Not sure about its functionality on other venues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I moved the template to Transclude Xfd. If no one objects, I'll start adding instructions to the XfD venue pages in, say, a week from now. Nickps (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You definitely have my vote. Thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, there is a small problem with the template (more accurately, with section transclusion in general) for RfD. The [ Closure: keep/retarget ] links that appear next to the nominated page are not disabled at deletion sorting. If someone attempts to use these links to close an RfD from the deletion sorting page, it not work correctly. I'll have to ask for a change at Template talk:rfd2 first. Nickps (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh. Odd. RfD shouldn't have too many issues with transclusion in and of itself-- after all, the RfD page itself is one giant transclusion zone for literally all active RfDs (which are actually hosted, as far as I can tell, on the daily log pages). Wonder what's going on here... I will note that I have no clue how transclusion works under the hood so I'm partially talking out my ass x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the code responsible for those links checks if the page name is equal to Redirects for discussion and if it is, it displays the text "@subpage". Otherwise, it displays the links like normal. This worked before since no one transcluded RfD pages except for the transclusion zone in RfD itself. Since I've broken this assumption by transcluding the RfDs to the deletion sorting pages, the code has to be updated to take that into account. Nickps (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh, now I get it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has now and as a bonus, @subpage is gone. That means there should be no more things that need fixing (famous last words). I'll start editing the XfD pages later because it's 2am where I am and there's no rush anyway. Nickps (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's mostly done. I didn't add instructions to CfD because I didn't quite know where they would fit and I didn't touch FfD and DRV either because I've never edited there and I don't want my first edit to be telling the experienced editors how to do things. If someone else wants to, you can finish the job. Nickps (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process


text:
This Is Dom Joly

This is Dom Joly is a spoof chat show presented by Dom Joly, originally shown on BBC Three in 2003. It featured interviews, live bands (complete with animals dancing around the band), "video diary" sketches, and the chance for a guest to describe an activity "in a nutshell".

It followed the global success of Trigger Happy TV for Channel 4 with Joly's move to the BBC. However, it did not meet the success of his previous project.

title: This Is Dom Joly


text:
Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/simplified draft

Background
This policy is intended to place a fair system in the gaps between the Dispute resolution process, Banning policy, Blocking policy, Dealing with vandalism policy and the Arbitration Committee. It does not seek to replace any of the above, but allows efficient management of recalcitrant, difficult, problem behavior.

Experienced Wikipedians encourage others to regard this policy as a safety valve or insurance. We should invoke it as rarely as possible.

It may be very helpful to ask ourselves these questions before initiating this formal process:
 * 1) Do I understand this user's motivation?
 * 2) Where are they from?
 * 3) What do they believe?
 * 4) Why are they behaving like this?
 * 5) What other steps can be taken?
 * 6) Does this user just need some advice?
 * 7) Are there other users involved that are also behaving in an unhelpful manner?
 * 8) Are my actions truly in the interests of creating an encyclopedia?
 * 9) Is this an issue that I am able to remain objective about?
 * 10) Is there somebody I should discuss my concerns with before I take any action?

Summary
An ad hoc tribunal of three admins may summarily block a user for 24 hours for repeated violations of Wikipedia policies, if they follow due process. To constitute a blockable offence the behavior must be repeated despite fair warning.

This policy does not at all affect the ability of admins to summarily block persistent vandals.

Step 1. Try to resolve the problem amicably
Before any type of warning or direction should be given, effort should be made to resolve the problem amicably. It may be that the user is unaware of the policy in question. Regardless of how obvious you think it should be, point the user to the page describing the policy. If the user is aware of the policy, but disagrees with it, show the user that there is consensus for the policy. To do this you may want to request community involvement. Upon ratification of this policy, a section will be added to Requests for comment for "Policy disputes". While disputes in this section may include references to user behavior, the focus should be on the policies or guidelines themselves, not any particular user.

While trying to resolve the problem amicably you may find that there is no policy prohibiting the user's behavior. If that is the case, and you believe there can be consensus for such a policy, you should propose one. This blocking policy is not a method to allow a large majority of admins to enforce their own personal rules.

Step 2. Give the user a formal warning
If at least three admins agree that a user is knowingly engaging in behavior which violates a valid policy, they may formally warn a user to cease that behavior ("Notice to cease"). Such a warning may be created by anyone, but it is not in effect until certified by at least three admins per the certification rules below (see "Number of admins required to certify").

The overall tone of the warning should be firm, but respectful. Avoid ranting! Rants do not portray an aura of authority and command. The warning should include, at least:

 * Evidence of policy
 * link(s) to relevant policy page(s), for example staying cool, personal attacks, civility, NPOV, not biting newcomers, avoiding edit wars.
 * if a policy is disputed, a link to the discussion and consensus for it
 * Evidence that the user was aware of the policy
 * URL to a diff on the user's talk page where the user was shown the policy or guideline
 * If the policy was disputed by the user, a URL to a diff where the consensus was shown
 * Evidence that a user's behavior violated the policy
 * URLs to diffs of problematic edits at least one of which occurred after the user was made aware of the policy
 * a formal request to stop making such edits.
 * signatures with timestamps (type )
 * There should be two sections for signatures: certifying admins and objecting admins
 * a notice that any editor who objects to this warning or would otherwise like to comment can use the talk page

This formal warning should be placed in the Wikipedia namespace and linked to from a list of other current notices. The user should be made aware of the warning by a message on his or her user talk page. The purpose of making the warning public is to allow interested users to participate in the process. Admins and non-admins are encouraged to comment on the warning. Only admin votes are binding, but all comments will be considered in the case that the warning is appealed to the arbitration committee.

A notice to cease expires after 60 days.

Step 3. Institution of block
If a user continues to engage in the problematic behavior after receiving a formal warning, two additional signature sections should be added: "Admins certifying block" and "Admins objecting to block". Upon certification by at least three admins per the certification rules below (see "Number of admins required to certify"), the user shall be blocked for 24 hours. The notice to cease shall be kept in effect after a block is instituted, and in the case additional blocks are needed signature sections shall be added ("Admins certifying block #2", etc).

In the event of a controversial block admins should prioritise clarifying existing policy and counselling wayward colleagues as needed. Preventing future controversy does more for Wikipedia than extended debate to correct what is, in reality, a very short block. However, voting does remain open until the block expires to allow correction of clearly unjustifiable blocks. If, at any point, over half the voting admins disagree with the block, one of them may remove it immediately. If support for the block is regained at the level specified below (3+2d), the user may be reblocked for the remainder of the time.

The Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales may also overturn blocks.

Ongoing review
All users may make constructive comments on the validity of the warnings and blocks at any point in the process.

Final Appeal
Users who do not agree with a block or notice to cease may appeal at any time requesting arbitration. Since blocked users cannot edit to request arbitration, they should instead email an arbitrator. Appeals do not affect the block status.

Number of admins required to certify
In the absence of dissent from a fellow admin, consensus among three admins allows enforcement. For every admin that dissents, at least two more must support the first three certifying admins. Thus if one admin dissents then at least five must support the block. If two dissent, then seven must support the block, etc.


text:
Talk:Crossrail

Merger of "History of the Crossrail line" into this article
On 8 May, Zsteve21 merged History of the Crossrail line into this article. I disagree with this change, as I think there is more than enough content to have a separate History article to keep this page more readable. Does anyone else agree/disagree? Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Such a major change should have been proposed for consensus first. Revert per WP:BRD. I would do it but not practical on mobile. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC) revised --15:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest just waiting a few days? Given that the railway line and service operating on it, i.e. Elizabeth line, is going to become (almost) fully operational on 24 May, quite a bit of information from both here and TfL Rail is going to go over to that Elizabeth line article. At that point this article will be all about the project to build the line - a key part of which is its history. I'm suggesting wait-see because I think at the point the article (including the merged in history and moved-out operational stuff) will likely be of an acceptable size. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I've reverted it back to how it was before, so that a clear consensus can be reached before we decide anything. Personally I think it should remain a separate article, with the Crossrail article's History section being a summary of the History article, with a "Main" link. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted the history section back to where it was before the content was moved across from the other article. Obviously there's work to be done on both to reduce overlap and make the summary here more succinct / focused. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversies and delays
Hi, i got to know that Crossrail was bogged down by numerous delays and other controversies between 2015 and 2019. But there is no mention of these issues in the article. Shouldnt we have a separate section dedicated these issues? Learninglawry (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

a project

 * Crossrail is a completed railway project ...

And the Great Pyramid is a completed funerary project? It's an odd description. Is the name Crossrail not used for the result of the project? —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 * The railway service called the Elizabeth line. Jessintime (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources also back up the "Crossrail Project" moniker. e.g. Crossrail project Turini2 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crossrail


text:
Battle of the Windmill

 * The "Battle of the Windmill" is also a fictional battle in the book Animal Farm.

The Battle of the Windmill was fought in November 1838 in the aftermath of the Upper Canada Rebellion. Loyalist forces of the Upper Canadian government and American troops, aided by the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy, defeated an invasion attempt by a Hunter Patriot para-military unit based in the United States, which had the intention of using the beachhead as a launchpad for further offensives into Canada. Canadian, British, and American troops thwarted the invasion, successfully defending Canadian soil and forced the invaders to surrender. Others still in the U.S. were captured and arrested by U.S. officials.

Background
After a rebellion by disaffected Upper Canadians was suppressed in 1837, the majority of the rebel leaders fled to the United States. Popular sentiment in the States held that Canadians were eager to overthrow British rule and form a republic patterned after the American model.

An organization known as the Hunter Patriots was formed to assist the rebellion. Organized in secret neo-Masonic lodges, and with widespread support in the northern border states from Vermont to Wisconsin, the Patriot Hunters aimed to invade Canada and lead an army of insurgent Canadians against the British colonial government. In reality, much of the Canadian population was loyal to existing British institutions and decidedly against the prospects of revolution or invasion.

In November 1838, a group of Hunter Patriots decided that it was time to invade Canada and restart the rebellion. They chose as their target the town of Prescott, on the north bank of the St. Lawrence River downriver from Kingston. Prescott is the site of Fort Wellington, a British military fortification that commanded the St. Lawrence River and was serving as a fortified depot for the Upper Canadian militia. To initiate the strike, a large group of Hunters assembled in Sackets Harbor, New York, and descended the river to Ogdensburg in civilian vessels. Overall military command of the invading forces was held by John Birge, a senior member of the Hunter organization in New York state.

Attempted seizure of Prescott
Early in the morning of November 12, a force of about 250 men attempted to land in Prescott. However, the British had infiltrated the Hunter organization, and had advance warning of the attack. With the element of surprise gone, and with the town militia ready to repel a landing, the Hunter forces abandoned the landing. Their vessels ran aground on a mud flat where the Oswegatchie River flows into the St. Lawrence off Ogdensburg.

Later in the morning, Bill Johnston, Admiral of the Hunter navy, arrived and freed the stranded vessels, which then ran downriver to Windmill Point, a promontory located approximately two miles east of Prescott. Here, most of the Hunter forces landed to occupy the hamlet of Newport and its most prominent feature, a large, stone windmill building that enjoyed a panoramic view of the St. Lawrence River as far west as Brockville and eastwards over the Gallop Rapids. The commanders of the Hunters appointed a Swedish immigrant with some military experience, Nils von Schoultz, to command the Hunter forces while the Hunter leadership withdrew to Ogdensburg to collect reinforcements and supplies.

First assault
The windmill was built of thick stone and stood 60 ft high on top of a 30 ft bluff. Although the attackers had not planned to use the structure, it provided an ideal fortified position. Its height prevented the British forces from approaching unobserved, and its thick stone walls were impervious to small arms and to small field and naval artillery. Early on the morning of 13 November, a force under the command of the militia officers Colonel Plomer Young, Colonel Richard Fraser, Colonel John Crysler, Captain George Greenfield Macdonell, and Colonel Ogle Gowan and comprising a handful of British infantry from the 83rd Regiment and approximately 600 Canadian militiamen, including the Grenville Militia, Dundas Militia, and Glengarry Militia, invested the Hunter position around Newport and attacked. The attack failed, leaving 13 regulars and militiamen killed and 70 wounded. The Dundas County Militia lost 3 men killed and 7 men wounded. The Hunters suffered about 18 killed and some wounded.

The next several days were a standoff. As time passed, von Schoultz's position became desperate. Promised reinforcements and supplies never arrived as the United States Navy aided the Royal Navy in blocking egress from Ogdensburg. Law enforcement and military officials in Ogdensburg secured available vessels, and most of the prominent Hunter leaders fled from town to avoid arrest.

Second assault
Heavy artillery from Kingston, as well as sizeable detachments of British Army regulars, Canadian militia and U.S. Army regulars, tried to strengthen the Canadian forces. An artillery bombardment of the windmill was conducted on November 16 as they had been reinforced by four companies of the 83rd Regiment, Commanded by Henry Dundas. Royal Navy gunboats and steamers, and ships of the U.S. navy blocked the Hunters from escaping, and Hunter casualties mounted, so von Schoultz unconditionally surrendered.

Aftermath
In the aftermath of the battle, almost all of the Hunters were captured and were transported to Kingston for trial. Eleven people, including the Hunter leader Nils von Schoultz, were executed; another 60 were sentenced to transportation to Australia. 40 were acquitted, and another 86 were later pardoned and released. Von Schoultz enjoyed the legal counsel of John A. Macdonald, a prominent young Kingston lawyer who would later become the architect of Canada's Confederation in 1867 and Canada's first prime minister.

The site of the battle was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1920.

title: Battle of the Windmill