User talk:Cremastra

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong.

June thanks

Thank you for improving article quality in June! - I heard this music, yesterday, - streamed a day before at a different location. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given in recognition to Cremastra for accumulating at least 10 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of starfish in New Zealand

Hello, Cremastra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of starfish in New Zealand, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4 at OTD

Hey, I see that you swapped hooks for July 4 at OTD, even though I already swapped them for 2025. Was there a reason why you didn't want to use that set? Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Nope, it was just that my brain was apparently on holiday at the time. Thanks for catching that; I've reverted back to your version, although I'll add the Starmer hook to the notes. Cremastra (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi (character) WP:BADNAC

I believe that this close was a WP:BADNAC. The rationale for closure states that "Thus, opposing comments which apparently misunderstood the intent of the move and objected to Mangione being the primary topic were given considerably less weight, as they are not pertinent to this RM." First of all, the move was based on Luigi Mangione being a potential primary topic, something that was noted as incorrect by people in the discussion. However, multiple oppose !votes mentioned Mangione to refute the initial nominator but also added that the discussion was not in fact about Mangione but the name in general. It is not clear whether these were also ignored. The closing rationale also refers to the argument of User:Joy that this is not the best-known Luigi, but all of the presented articles, such as Luigi Pirandello, run afoul of WP:PTM. Overall, I believe this is a "no consensus" closure, as there is no agreement either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that does not run afoul of WP:PTM. We've had this discussion probably dozens of times already, and repeating this claim that readers don't look for people under their own names is still contradicted by many known examples (like the recent Tito, Charlotte, Orlando).

Also, I've explicitly said that the character is possibly the best-known individual Luigi (but that it doesn't matter as much as one might assume), so the above seems to be a basic misreading of my argument.

The matter of Mangione ostensibly muddies the water, but any closer needs to be able to discern that in the discussion, the original proposer clarified their mention of Mangione within the first few days, and they were not subsequently contradicted by further arguments, beyond a few assertions and opinions.

The idea that the WP:CLOSE process was not observed appropriately here would be much easier to ponder if this complaint didn't make this many claims that should be discarded per WP:CLOSE.

On related note, a possible procedural issue that I looked at here is that Cremastra did not address Thomasfan1000's idea to move the general disambiguation page to Luigi. This was an idea brought up late, in response to a comment by Zxcvbnm, and didn't get explicit traction. It might have been another compromise worth exploring, maybe by making a note about it and extending the discussion period a bit longer. Nevertheless, as there was no traction after that comment on June 21, and two other supports came in on 22 and 26, it was still within the conventional parameters of RM closer behavior to disregard it, as an idea that never went anywhere.

AFAICT Cremastra applied WP:RMNAC well here. After the change at Luigi, we'll be able to better measure to what extent readers engage with these articles in this particular case, and have a new RM in a few months time based on hopefully better data. WP:Consensus is a process of compromise that depends on the quality of arguments, and having more measurements will hopefully help that quality.

So overall this kind of a closure is a positive development that we should encourage. We should not dissuade it by arguing with closers who did nothing wrong. --Joy (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that Luigi Mangione was the primary topic for "Luigi", because, as you point out, that's a PTM. Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. Some !voters didn't understand that, despite the nom's clarification. Cremastra (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand it. If Mangione and all the other Luigis are only partial title matches, how do they add up to primacy for their given name? What's the logic here? Mangione was used as an example of Luigi (given name) being the primary topic here. That makes no sense. A single person named Luigi is not an example of any such thing. And note that Joy does not agree with you about PTMs. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Luigi (character) § Requested move 13 June 2025

@Srnec: Because as various voters put it, the first name is very common in real life; it's frankly laughable that this very common name would be supplanted by a video game character. Very definitely not the primary topic by long-term significance Mangione is mentioned as an example of why the real life given name should be given precedence over the video game character. I do not mean to suggest (nor, I think, does anyone) that Luigi Mangione is actually the primary topic for "Luigi"; his popularity is merely evidence that the widely used and common given name is the primary topic here and has more long-term significance than the video game character. Joy does not have to agree with me on PTMs because we are not part of "pro" and "anti" blocs here. I see where the confusion is coming from, though. The base point here is in my closing statement: Supporters presented the argument that Luigi is a common first name and has more long-time significance, while the character is not the primary topic, given the evidence of pageviews and the reader navigation chart at wikinav.

This is like if there was a moderately well-known fictional character known simply as "Andrew". It is still clear that Andrew is the primary topic because of the countless people named David, who add up to give the name more long-term significance and make it the primary topic. Cremastra (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TARANATH PARAMHANS ( JOYGURU) on Wikipedia:Speedy deletion (20:43, 4 July 2025)

कृपया इसे न हटाएं। तारानाथ परमहंस एक महान काली उपासक और तंत्र विद्या के जीते जगते उदाहरण थे। --TARANATH PARAMHANS ( JOYGURU) (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not responsible for requesting the deletion of your userpage. Also, this is the English encyclopedia. Please ONLY write in English on this website, so that we can actually talk to you. If you want to go to the Hindi Wikipedia, go to hi.wikipedia.org.

मैं आपके उपयोगकर्ता पृष्ठ को हटाने के अनुरोध के लिए जिम्मेदार नहीं था। साथ ही, यह अंग्रेजी विश्वकोश है। कृपया इस वेबसाइट पर केवल अंग्रेजी में लिखें, ताकि हम वास्तव में आपसे बात कर सकें। यदि आप हिंदी विकिपीडिया पर जाना चाहते हैं, तो hi.wikipedia.org पर जाएँ। Cremastra (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: UrielAcosta, who correctly tagged your userpage for speedy deletion. Cremastra (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ctenodiscus crispatus

Hello, Cremastra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ctenodiscus crispatus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]