Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.
As far as I can tell, no one supported the status quo in the RM discussion, yet that is the outcome. No one directly said they were opposed. I suggest that some different result or simply further extending the discussion period would have been more appropriate. One guideline section to consider is WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:STATUSQUO is the status quo for a reason; it's what remains when there isn't consensus for change. The commentary was enough for me to see there was a lack of convincing consensus. There has been only one comment in the past ~7 weeks, it had already been shared with relevant wikiprojects prior to that, so I don't see how more time would have helped here either. I also don't see NOTCURRENT applying, that's only if there is consensus to no longer continue with the current title, which was not the case whatsover. CNC (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, with RM closer it left me the option of submitting at RMTR, or move to the proposed (incorrect) target. Next time I'll click the RMTR option and revert, in order to avoid watchlist clutter. Unfortunately there was no option to move manually. Potentially worth mention this on the talkpage of said tool, as hadn't had this issue before but was quite frustrating. CNC (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RM close at 2025 Boulder fire attack
Hello, would you be open to undoing your close and allowing another editor to take a look? I think this close might’ve benefited from verifying the unsourced claims made by participants (for example, “there was no firebombing”).
A selection of headlines given by googling “boulder firebombing”:
That's quite a source list, I commend you for the research. My close was however based on the discussion in the RM. Had you provided those sources during the discussion in hand, I have no doubt the outcome could well have been quite different. You are welcome to take this to WP:Move review if you believe the close was inappropriate, given I believe it was fair and balance. I'd otherwise recommend opening a discussion on the talkpage in order to build consensus with those sources provided. CNC (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page mover granted
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 01:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
debrief
Thanks for taking the time to add an entry of your recent close to RSP! Your intuition about the section tag is indeed how SGML tags usually go; I find it incredibly wayward that labeled section transclusion elects to use such jarring syntax. I don't think anything else does something like that.
Great, thank you! That's the part I couldn't figure out and didn't find that link you just provided, so posted at DEPS talkpage for assistance instead. Have reverted that topic now that you have done the technicals, thanks again. CNC (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)
Tip of the month:
A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.
Hello I saw you removed my edit about Musk and Archeofuturism, I just wanted to make clear why I added it and why it should be included too:
Musk commented on the repost of the user DeepThinker, in which the user embraced the idea of Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism, the original post came from the European New Right publisher Arktos Media (Arktos Journal on X). Musk agreed with DeepThinker's words on the post of the Arktos Journal about Archeofururism. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other cases of Musk views X is also used as source, I mean I understand that X isn't a reliable source, but the comment came from Musk's own account. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only when quoting for context, because of secondary sources discussing the tweet and making it due. Not every Musk reply on X is notable, most aren't, and those included arent random either. You need to argue on the talk page why its due, not here. CNC (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
