User talk:1isall

This is 1isall's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Note: Most discussions and comments on this page are usually kept and even archived. However, ones that are...

posted in error
obvious vandalism
promotional
personal attacks or harassment
posted via block evasion

...will be removed.

1isall is in school and may be inactive for varying periods of time.

1isall does not mind criticism. Feel free to let him know if he did something wrong. He also thinks you should do the same to anyone else as long as you follow some basic guidelines: remain civil, assume good faith and don't bite.

It is 5:04 AM where this user lives in New Jersey. ^(Purge)

Page mover

Hi 1isall, have you considered requesting WP:Page mover right? I noticed you have made a dozen or so requests to RMTR and lots of experience with RMs. See WP:PMCRITERIA for criteria. Regards, CNC (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, page mover rights are something that has been on my mind. I've read the criteria and may consider trying to apply for the rights. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, while I haven't checked all your requests and RM participation/closes, for reference I had similar participation at RMTR as you when I applied, less at RM overall probably. CNC (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if I meet all 4 criteria, so I'm considering a wait. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when did you start participating in RMs? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From November 2023 it seems, with <500 edits to RMs before getting PM. Looking back I really didn't have that much RM experience, but had started closing discussions by then. CNC (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall ‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 I would also suggest that you should apply for page mover! You definitely have a lot of experience (more than I had when I got it), and I think you would do great at it =) – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 Your contributions to RMs and RM/TR look good and I think you'll use this perm for good! HurricaneZeta^C 01:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks to both of you, I might actually consider attempting to apply for the right. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 01:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe unorthodox to do but given I'm not the only one who thinks it, pinging @SilverLocust in case they want to have a look (regular PM granter who granted mine). CNC (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be good to check if I meet the criteria before filing the formal request. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perm granted; formality skipped. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this means so much. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall Congrats!!! – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!! HurricaneZeta^C 03:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! I will make sure to read the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirects and for revocation. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosquito Coast move Request

User is blocked indefinitely. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi @1isall; I saw that you close the move request for Mosquito Coast to Mosquitia with (not moved). I have reasons to believe that this is inconsistent with WP:rmcidc, “giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.”

Per WP:title, “the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short [1) concise], natural [2) readable], distinguishable [3) precise/unambiguous] and recognisable [4) common or widely accepted]; and resembles titles for similar articles [5) consistent; i.e. WP:place].” And, WP:commonname “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used …. as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.”

In other words, an ideal WP:title is a WP:commonname that best fit the five WP:criteria.

I was able to show (as will be seen here) that Mosquitia best fit WP:concise (short) and WP:precise (distinguishable), which also makes it natural (readable). But since the title should also “resembles” i.e., be WP:consistent with WP:place, which deals with “titles for similar articles”, we also need to consider WP:wian and WP:mpn. Per WP:wian, “a name can be considered widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states that it is the name most often used.” Karl Offen wrote: “the toponym Mosquitia also has historical usage in both languages, and the region is known by this name … today.” This is what gives us the ultimate recognisable (common) name for the title; as Mosquito Coast is also inconsistent with WP:mpn.

This is consistent with “the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.” Nhtpaf (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhtpaf Your move request was unanimously opposed, with the opposers citing that Mosquito Coast is the WP:COMMONNAME, and using websites like Ngrams, Britannica, dictionaries, Google Maps, and BBC as evidence.

Under the WP:Snowball clause: "If a process only has a snowball's chance in hell of success, or failure, use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake." Because of the unanimous opposition with COMMONNAME-based reasoning and proof, I chose to close the request early. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 12:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1isall: Per WP:rmcidc, “Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.” In other words, the voice of the “Wikipedia community in general” is “reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions” and even 100 participants could not oppose the general voice of the Wikipedia community.

Now, the Wikipedia community in general states in WP:title that “Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognisable; and resembles titles for similar articles.” In other words, when we have multiple common-names for a title, the ideal article title is the common-name that best fit the five principles:

1) Concise (short) – No longer than necessary to identify the subject.

2) Natural (readable) – A title that flows naturally in English, without unnecessary wording or confusion.

3) Precise (distinguishable) – Clear and unambiguous; it identifies the topic and nothing else.

4) Recognisable (common-name) – The name readers are most likely to search for or expect.

5) Consistency (resemblance) – Titles should align with naming patterns of similar articles (topic-specific naming conventions on article titles).

WP:title: “For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice.”

Comparing the two common-names under consideration, we see that Mosquitia is more concise, natural, and precise, than Mosquito Coast; and it is also consistent with the addition policies found under WP:place. Now, remember, both are already common-names (recognisable), that’s why we’re assessing their compatibility with the other principles; and Mosquitia checks all of the boxes better Mosquito Coast. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion nomination of Cotl (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Clair Obscur

Hello, I'd appreciate if you relisted the discussion instead of closing it. In no way was it an open and shut situation, and I believe it was a WP:BADNAC. At the very least I'd appreciate an explanation of how policy was interpreted in this case, since I don't believe any of the !votes were actually based in WP policy. See also WP:SUPV#Pile-on supervote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 05:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for telling me about this, I'm pretty much starting out on learning how to close RMs, with clear-cut cases first, and as you said, this isn't one of them. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 05:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't want to sound sore loser-y, I simply believe that people have generally either not addressed DIFFCAPS in their responses or said "IAR oppose anyway" (which is not necessarily a license to go against policy unless you can come up with a pressing reason otherwise). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1isali: Don't feel bad about this. Your original close was just fine and certainly not a BADNAC. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire Why do you think so? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 12:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings!

Wishing you and yours a fantastic Christmas (or holiday season for those who don’t celebrate) and all the best for 2026. 🎄 ❄️☃️

Here’s to a collaborative, constructive year ahead — with good faith, good edits, and just enough discussion to get things done!

(and here's Sir Nils Olav inspecting his troops... one of my favourite POTDs)

Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays to you as well! Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, 1isall. 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.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

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 💬) 02:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PLA (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 December 2025

I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning and how you weighed the inputs in this discussion (per WP:CONS, WP:RMCLOSE). --Joy (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a support !vote immediately after the relist. I weighed both to determine that the consensus is "People's Liberation Army gets the most pageviews". Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 13:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alert! Les Sucettes

Hello, it appears that we both took action on Les Sucettes after seeing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, and I performed the page swap process moments after you. It looks like I reversed your action accidentally. I will step aside and allow you to fix it up. Sorry about that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, weird. I'll go and redo the move. It's all good. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 13:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 1isall!

Happy New Year!

1isall,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you! Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 16:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Hey,

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 17 December 2025.

Although my suggestion wasn't accepted, I believe there's a consensus to move to "Auschwitz" (plus, as it's the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by ngrams).

Can you please take a look again? IdanST (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the arguments against that alternative proposal were pretty strong, which led me to that close. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees-Red Sox rivalry

Hello 1isall. I am requesting that you relist the RM at Yankees–Red Sox rivalry. With only two "support" votes, there is not a WP:QUORUM to take action. Further, there have been several discussions in the past (including a 2014 RM) in which the consensus has consistently been to not move the page. While consensus can change, especially over many years, I do not see a two-person discussion (which was not relisted even once), to be indicitive of changing consensus. Thank you. Frank Anchor 13:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed a silent consensus when closing the discussion, but I guess we should give it another week. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 13:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]