This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, this is my first article about a horse in australia that could be the best of all time (there is some specualtion about this) not sure what i should do to get rid of CSD A1 rating, seems like there is enough info compared to other horses that are listed on wiki Franga87 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia! I hope you enjoy yourself here. I wholly agree with your estimation of the notability of the article -- it is clear from the sources that are easily found on the internet. Please do not be disheartened by the inappropriately posted suggested that it be deleted. I would appear that the editor suggesting deletion had not performed a search of the "reliable source" articles that appear in abundance with regard to the horse. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Franga87, thanks for creating the article. I placed a speedy on the first version as it appeared to have no meaningful content apart from the words "Black Caviar", had I realised that this was to become an article about a notable award-winner then it would never have been a candidate for deletion. Unfortunately I was not around to notice your continued improvements otherwise I would have un-tagged it myself. As per my welcome on your talk page, please do drop me a note if you need any help. As well as the option of creating a draft of new articles in your userspace (see WP:DRAFT) it may help to tag new articles you are actively working on with {{construction}} which tends to give you a bit more breathing space to get a new article underway. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Primary topic?
Currently Black Caviar is a redirect to Caviar, but if you look at the history of the redirect, it was originally an article for this horse, but was boldly turned into a redirect with no discussion that I can see. So, in my opinion, Black Caviar the horse is the primary topic (I googlehits is a bit of a weak argument, but it seems pretty clear cut) and should simply have a hatnote pointing to the caviar article. Seeking other opinions before I start a requested move though. Anyone have one? Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose that doesn't even come close to proving primary topic, it only proves notability. The type of caviar is obviously primary meaning, since the horse hasn't been around very long, or known much outside of horseracing (unlike say, Secretariat, or Seabiscuit) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I would contend that being the best racehorse in the world means it is known outside of horseracing. For example, see a google search where, although the type of caviar does have a few results, the horse is the subject of many more of the hits. Same with google news and google news archive. Also again please see that Black Caviar was only initially created as an article for the horse and was converted into a redirect for lack of nobility. Jenks24 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose When a person hears "black caviar" the immediate association that they are likely to make is to "caviar" rather than an individual horse that most people have never heard of. Their second association might be with "horse doovers" but the primary association is still with food. The current location of this article would therefore seem to be correct, at least as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned. 65.93.12.101 is correct, the newspaper article only establishes notability, not that the horse is the primary use of "Black Caviar". As far as google hits are concerned, the apparent popularity of the horse is obviously related to recent events. Go back before March and the primary use is the food. WP:RECENT applies to the google news hits and at the archives I'm seeing the opposite to what the nominator seems to be seeing. The archives point mainly to food articles. The redirection of "Black Caviar" was justified at the time. There's no possibility that an obscure 4 1/2 year old Australian horse (for the record I'm Australian and had never heard of the horse until today) has, in the last month, become the primary use world-wide for a term with a 400 year history. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so this is the first time I have proposed something at requested moves and I could have worded my original statement a lot better; to be honest, I didn't put much effort into it because I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial. I know the newspaper article does not establish that the horse is the primary topic and I was never trying to claim that (though I can see how that may have appeared). The gnews archives are perhaps 50/50 at the moment and that ratio will only increase (towards the racehorse). At the time the redirection was justified, but now it is obviously not. If caviar was obviously the primary topic, why did no one create an article on it for 8 years, before one was created about the horse? For the record, I am Australian and I've heard the horse mentioned frequently, which is why I, someone who has never previously edited a horse-related article, came to this article and was surprised it was not the primary topic. I definitely do not think the horse is "obscure". Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hugely Strong Oppose - Black Caviar's primary meaning is that of caviar (sturgeon roe), in fact that was the reason for calling a horse by that name - to honor the delicacy dish, not the oher way around. The Ogre (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - A better measure of what the primary topic of something is would be a Google Book Search, since books are much less influenced by recentism than other media and more reflective of what is perceived as important by a larger fraction of the public over a longer period of time. As seen here, the variety of caviar is obviously the primary meaning for "black caviar". -- Yzx (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I manually typed in Black Caviar to get to this page. It redirects to Caviar, which helpfully informs me if I wanted Black Caviar (funnily enough I did, since that's what I typed in), go here. Pure wikipedia.
Requested move (2)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar – The horse is the clear primary topic. A Google search for "black caviar" has nine out of ten results on the first page relating to the horse, including the first four. A Google News search returns similar results. This article has 3258 views over the past 30 days; the food redirect has only 224. In any case, the food article should not have "caviar" anyway, so this article should be moved to "Black Caviar" and the food redirect to "Black caviar" IgnorantArmies?!08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Your Google search is flawed; I suspect you have an interest in horse racing, and so Google has promoted those options above others due to your personal search history. When I do a Google search and apply "&pws=0" to turn off the customized results, only three of the top ten results are for the horse. Furthermore, the move doesn't make sense from the perspective of the principle of least astonishment, either; the reader searching for the horse would not be in the least surprised to find herself at the article on caviar, since that's the plain meaning of the words she searched for, while the average reader looking for the food item might very well be surprised to find herself at an article on a racehorse. PowersT13:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hence why the racehorse should be at "Black Caviar" and "Black caviar". I don't understand how a variant of a food which is apparently not notable enough to warrant its own article can be the primary topic over what is apparently "the best racehorse in the world" (from article). At the very least, a disambiguation page should be created. IgnorantArmies?!14:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's simple, the same reason Danzig redirects to Gdansk even though there's a racehorse named "Danzig". And of course, the principle of least surprise which I mentioned before. PowersT14:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
As nice an essay as WP:ASTONISH is, it is still only an essay. In addition, it seems that this guy was pretty astonished to be redirected to the caviar article when searching for Black Caviar. Two of the three tools suggested at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would recommend that the horse is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Black caviar is a well-known luxury food which very many have eaten. I ate some once. It has been well-known far longer than the horse, and likeliest will continue to be well-known long after the horse has become too old to race. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Black caviar has a 400 year history. It's likely to continue to be well-known long after the horse has gone to the glue factory. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Not one of the first 50 Google books hits is about the horse. To be fair, I don't think many of them are about caviar either, judging by the quantities they advocate chucking about. They probably mostly refer to dyed lumpfish roe. For what it is worth, WikiProject Equine has a sort of agreed policy that articles on individual horses will be Foo (horse), and that horse breeds will be Foobar horse. This wonderful animal is a horse; I don't see any harm in making that clear in the title of her article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I accept that the preferences of one WikiProject do not take precedence over whole-wiki considerations and have struck out my earlier comment. My other objections stand, and I still oppose the move; the horse is not the primary topic, and Foo (horse) should be used. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Clearly the primary topic of the term "Black Caviar", as can be seen by the page view statistics. The primary topic guideline suggests three ways of determining the primary topic: page views (which shows the horse as primary); google searches (news is split while books does favour the food); and incoming wikilinks. As can be seen by Special:WhatLinksHere/Black Caviar, there is only one article that links to it (and that article, Royal Academy (horse), is meaning to link to the horse!), while Special:WhatLinksHere/Black Caviar (horse) has 15 incoming links from articles. It seems clear that the majority of people searching for/linking to "Black Caviar" are looking for the horse. Jenks24 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed alternative puts far too much of a burden on the capital "C", even if the argument concerning the primary topic is sound. Keep this very natural title as it is. NoeticaTea?06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move (3)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved, per previous RM and no clear consensus here either. However Black Caviar has been redirected to the horse instead of the fish eggs. Black Caviar (horse) should not be seen as excessive disambiguation Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Still oppose. Nothing has changed from the last time in my view. The capital letter alone is not sufficient in this case, where confusion seems likely. I also think WP:ASTONISH continues to apply here; the searcher looking for the race horse, if directed to the caviar article, is less likely to be surprised by that than the other way around (because the searcher looking for the race horse is likely more aware of the existence of caviar than the searcher looking for caviar is to be aware of the horse). PowersT16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Still support. Look at the correlation between these two graphs [1][2] and tell me that the readers searching for "Black Caviar" aren't looking for the horse. Black Caviar is a household name in Australia, the best racehorse in the world at the moment and probably the most well known Australian racehorse since Phar Lap, which IMO makes it the primary topic, especially when taking the nom's point about title case into consideration. Jenks24 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title immediately ques the reader that this article is about a horse and not the variety of caviar (also what about the Diva?). While the trend now may be that more people associate "Black Caviar" with the horse, will the same be true 10 or 20 years down the line? Froggerlaura (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But if that is the case in 10 or 20 years, we can change it back then. As long as there is no indication popularity will decrease in at least the next few years, shouldn't we be doing what readers currently want? Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm still unsure this is "what the readers want" given that the same three people keep commenting on these move requests. As you seem to feel strongly on this topic, I will post over at WP:TB in an attempt to get a broader consensus. I am still of the opinion that complete reliance on the capital C (moving entire article to "Black Caviar" instead of redirecting Black Caviar to "Black Caviar (horse)") to separate the food from the horse may be too great of a leap for most viewers (I usually search with all lowercase anyway). Froggerlaura (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you all understand that until the horse existed, typing "Black Caviar" got you to a "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page and until yesterday typing "black caviar" got you to the same page. The facts of the wiki history simply disagree with your assumptions on "surprise", "obviousness" or "astonishment". I'm sure that if it is moved, anyone who does type the name of a food in title case and finds a horse page won't be very astonished at all, when the first line on that page will say "this article is about a horse. For the food see Caviar". Most people typing in all lower case will go straight to the food page. The-Pope (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Linking to "Other stuff exists" (not, like, quoting the particular part of the essay which you believe applies to this discussion, or anything, that would just be silly) is entirely inappropriate, when The-Pope is referring to two articles that are at the heart of the discussion. Also, the average reader who bothers to search for "black caviar" will, most likely, be looking for the horse. I♦A13:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: We need to clarify what we are voting on. Is the request to move the Black Caviar (horse) page to the handle Black Caviar or is the request to redirect Black Caviar to Black Caviar (horse)? The first option I do not agree with, but I would support the second option because someone would have to specify the capital C and would want the horse. Which is it? Froggerlaura (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The proposal is for the "(horse)" to be dropped from the title. If we just redirected Black Caviar to Black Caviar (horse) that would be unnecessary disambiguation – it either is the primary topic or it isn't. By the way, if the article is moved to Black Caviar the searcher would still have to type the capital C – the lower case black caviar would still redirect to the food. Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
But if you're searching for Black Caviar and the drop down box gives you the options "Black caviar," "Black Caviar" or "Black Caviar (horse)," which would be the obvious choice if you were looking for the horse? Black Caviar is also a name for other items, such as a brand of mens' cologne. The current title is concise. Froggerlaura (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Capitalization does make a difference, as it does here at Red meat/Red Meat and here. "Black Caviar" is not obviously the food, since foods aren't Title Capped. black caviar may outlast the horse, but longevity isn't the point between different titles. The sun will outlast them both, but we don't redirect them to that, because it's a different title. There will e plenty of other move requests to handle changes over the next 10 to 20 years. As noted above, people without a reason to use Title Case search on lower case anyway, and will still land on the food unless taking the trouble to search on the Title Case version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Support (still). If anything, even more support, due to the extended period of coverage. Interestingly, neither Black Caviar nor Black caviar have any article links in the main namespace – only to article talk pages (i.e. this one) and user pages. The number of people looking for the racehorse far outweighs the number of people looking for a particular colour/variety of food. I believe not capitalising the food and capitalising the horse (without the disambiguation) would allow most readers to find what they're looking for. The argument of editors opposing the move seems to be longevity; if the horse is not the primary topic in 1, 2, 5... years, then it is just as easy to be moved back. Not a valid argument, IMHO. I♦A13:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Has Wikipedia no culture? (;-> The horse is the primary topic of the capitalised phrase, and possibly of the uncapitalised version too. Caviar is caviar, no black required, salmon roe is salmon roe. Unless you're an unscrupulous grocer with an ignorant clientelle, but these people while in every sense common are fortunately still outnumbered. Andrewa (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Pointless
I undid the change in target of Black Caviar. If consensus is against having the horse be the primary topic of "Black Caviar", then consensus is against having the horse be the primary topic of "Black Caviar". There is no point in not moving the article but retargetting the redirect. Move the article if needed, but there is no point in having any "base name title" redirect to "base name title (qualifier)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the situation as there is no consensus in either way. If this was a discussion in reverse, ie the horse was in "possession" of the primary title case topic then I couldn't see how a 4-5 !vote would lead to any change. Obviously as the last proposer of a move my view is clear, and I do think this recent close is unnecessary disambiguation, but it is a more technically correct position than having the roe have all the redirects, including those in contravention of our MOS. The only reasonable IAR explanation for the strange redirects is to have things both MOSCAPS compliant and still have the "auto fill text in the search box" benefit as described above. The-Pope (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
But having the horse article at "Black Caviar" and the redirect to the food at "Black caviar" and the redirect to the horse at "Black Caviar (horse)" would also be MOSCAPS compliant and still have the auto fill benefit. It's exactly the same arrangement of titles and eventual articles that the failed move above proposed. (I agree with your view, but if the closing admin read the consensus as against it, then the consensus is against that arrangement.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
And what you described was exactly as per my proposal. Do all redirects show up in the auto fill text search box? Currently I only get "Black Caviar (horse)" and "Black caviar" showing up - "Black Caviar" is NOT offered as an option. If we did what you and I both suggested, would the (horse) show up in the drop down list? I just reverted your edit back to the "Black Caviar" redirects to "Black Caviar (horse)" but "Black Caviar" still doesn't show up in the list, only "Black caviar" and (horse). Very strange. Not sure what to do now, do I leave it what I think is better, which is how Mike Cline left it after the RM close, or how JHunterJ left it. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the horse isn't the primary topic (per the failed move request), I've made the base name a disambiguation page. Perhaps that will solve it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, for now. If the Cav keeps on winning (especially if she goes overseas and keeps winning) we'll be back one day! Interesting that the Title Case version still doesn't show up in the auto text search box. The-Pope (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Five-year-old or six-year-old?
I noticed when watching Black Caviar run at Ascot today that in the list of runners she was shown as a 6-year-old. So should the race count as the first race of her 6-year-old career? When do Australian horses have their "official" birthday? I know that in the Northern Hemisphere it's 1st January. Maybe when she returns to Australia she'll revert to being five again! JH (talk page) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Alert! Can of worms being opened! Southern Hemisphere horses have their "birthdays" on 1 August, and are usually foaled in September-November. But in the Northern Hemisphere the 1st January rule applies regardless of where the horse was foaled. So yes, BC would go back to being a five-year-old when she returns to Oz. I have brooded over this problem on So You Think, where the seasons bear no relation to the way the horse has been campaigned in the last two years. It gets even trickier in the Dubai World Cup meeting where "four-year-olds" run against three-year-olds in the UAE Derby. Tigerboy1966 20:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Most other horse articles with results sections are split into seasons. Not sure why you think this should be any different? Although it does look nice with all those Wons down the left hand side. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Requested move (4): Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. Consensus has shifted considerably on this, and disambiguation via capitalization is perfectly acceptable per WP:PRECISION.Cúchullaint/c17:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar – Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when natural disambiguation is "not possible," according to WP:PRECISION. The capitalization of "Black Caviar" the horse distinguishes it from "black caviar" the food, so that is not the case here. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Supporting material
Black Caviar is a currently a disambiguation page with only two topics, the horse and the food. WP:TWODABS suggests that one of the two should be primary. If there are only two topics, the secondary can be handled with a hat note on the primary topic page. For readers looking for material on the horse, a DAB page adds an extra click. For those looking for the food, the article they seek remains one click away under either setup.
If you google "Black Caviar" -wikipedia, 19 of the top 20 results refer to the horse, so this is the topic the most likely to be sought, whatever capitalization.
Whatever the primary topic, WP:PRECISION allows for disambiguation by capitalization, with Red Meat vs. red meat given as an example. So "Black Caviar" can be the horse, "black caviar" the food, and there is no conflict.
"Black caviar" is not an idiom that refers to a kind of caviar. Caviar may be black or gray, but the varieties are not normally distinguished by color. So the current setup is misleading. Caviar is "the eggs, or roe, of sturgeon preserved with salt".[3] Black caviar is "the harvested roe (eggs) of a mature sturgeon fish."[4] In short, the word "black" is redundant, at least if the referent is food. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I'm an Australian, as excited about Black Caviar (horse) as any other, but I recognise that this is a classic case of recentism, as well as horse racing/Australian centrism. Most of the world's population is not excited about horse racing, most are not Australian, and in ten years time even those who are over-excited now will have another hero. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Invalid argument. Most of the world's population couldn't care less about the NBA, but that doesn't stop Lebron directing us to LeBron James. Tigerboy1966 00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Support the horse is the only topic that should be referred to with both first letters capitalised. The fish eggs can have the lower case version. The eggs didn't even have any black related redirects until the horse came around. It has nothing to do with "excitement", just grammatical accuracy. The-Pope (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we do that with capitalisation and lack of it? i.e. create two different paths? Sounds like a good solution to me. HiLo48 (talk)
Support This seems a bit silly to me. Caviar is often black, but I can't imagine that anyone that anyone would type "Black Caviar" into the wikipedia searchbox if they weren't looking for information about the racehorse. Can we have a bit of common sense about this topic? A hatnote at the top of the Black Caviar article directing misguided gourmands would surely suffice. see Red Rum for a rather obvious analogy and The Tetrarch for another. Tigerboy1966 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment this RM to pop up right after the old RMs were archived (a few hours later) so people should look through the old RMs, that were available to previous RM reviewers . 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment I have not participated in the previous discussions as I was undecided. I think the current RM should stand or fall on its merits. Things change. Black Caviar has received extensive significant coverage in British news sources like The Guardian[5], the BBC[6], the Daily Telegraph[7], which I think tips the balance in favour of the move. Tigerboy1966 12:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
My opposition is not based on notability or coverage, purely on my perception that someone is more likely to search in title case for a type of caviar than they are for "red meat". PowersT19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Scare quotes are what I (and probably you) know simply as quote marks. I asked recently at what seemed to be the right place how they got that name (never used in my part of the world, Australia), and nobody could tell me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Never heard the term used in Britain either. I have only ever heard the term on WP, and as the person using the term was reviewing an article I had nominated for GA and therefore had my metaphorical plums in a metaphorical vice, I didn't like to ask. Tigerboy1966 21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm very fond of the principle that we should use natural disambiguation rather than adding our own disambiguating terms to article titles; but I'm not convinced that relying on a case change in a single letter is sufficient, so I'm on the fence here. Presumably there would be hatnotes? bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course there will be suitable hatnotes. Please also note that the essential, no surprises, obvious redirect to Caviar DID NOT EVEN EXIST until after the horse come on the scene. Not in lower case nor title case. The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that alot of super-obvious redirects are never created, I run across them being missing. So the lack of a redirect is not very surprising. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Support – Reader who takes trouble to enter title case in search probably wants proper noun, and topic is primary (only) such meaning. ENeville (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Restore archive search box
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months|auto=long|search=yes}}
I've just noticed that when the Ho Chi Minh City IP set up the archive hiding the 3 previous RMs immediately before the recent RM (not labelled RM 4 when set up), the IP came back again for a second bite of the cherry and deleted the archive search box which the IP's first edit had caused to be set up. Hopefully pasting in the deleted template will work, test. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit summary, the archive box was removed because there was already another one – it's pointless to have two. I've also removed the archive box from this section because I can't see the point of it. Jenks24 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah-hah, so that was a beneficial contribution from the IP then? Do you think the IP's hiding of the 3 original RMs, starting with your own RM1, was also beneficial here? ... btw, I've noticed today what I hadn't noted before, that there's a high rate of parallel position between your good self and the IP in the IP-tampered RMs. In how many of the dozen RMs affected are you yourself either proposer of one of the previous failed RMs hidden (as here), or supporting the RM? You might want to mull over whether your own "similar position", as you yourself have put it, on some issues makes you not exactly involved, but not 101% impartial either. I'm restoring the archive box here as, pointless or not, it shows what we're talking about when we say "archive box". It would only be an issue in the context. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
