Hi HKLionel. Thank you for your work on Wonderland Manekin. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: now mentioned, thanks for the note HKLionel TALK 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: hmm, what about Manekina? It's the female form of Manekin, but is coincidentally not mentioned in the sources. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't exist though, as it's cheap. What do you think? Much appreciated, HKLionel TALK 13:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but since it isn't mentioned directly in the target page, I'll leave it for another reviewer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking if I should go through the trouble finding another source that does mention the female form. Thanks, HKLionel TALK 13:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for sources online and there are enough, but I can't judge which are reliable. I've reviewed the redirect for now, but I suggest that you mention the female form of the name in the article with a ref or a {{cn}}. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 pleas can I get your support to display my article in encyclopedia and google for public information

thank you for your support Wasama1 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824, I dunno what Wasama1 is doing here, but rest assured I haven't forgotten about this task. I'll archive this section after I'm done. HKLionel TALK 15:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
Can you explain how you reached your 'no consensus' conclusion at these two RfDs involving possessive redirect?

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 24#Chester A. Arthur's
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 24#Brigham Young University's

By my count, participants were 7:4 in favor of deletion for Chester A. Arthur'sChester A. Arthur's and 8:4 in favor of deletion Brigham Young University'sBrigham Young University's. I understand that assessing consensus is more than a mere head count but a spread like that will often result in deletion and I'm curious if there were arguments that you that weighted higher or lower to reach your conclusion. The 'keep' votes were substantially based on the notion that these possessive redirects are useful for linking and the need to conclude a broader discussion at WT:RE. During the course of both RfDs, the WT:RE discussion closed inconclusively and inspired an RFC at WT:MOSLINK. The outcome of the WT:MOSLINK RFC was strong consensus to not use possessive links like Chester A. Arthur'sChester A. Arthur's and Brigham Young University'sBrigham Young University's in article space. These developments during the course of the two RfDs, which were raised in both discussions, would seem to substantially weaken the 'keep' rationales, which were already in the minority and not obviously stronger than the 'delete' rationales. For full transparency, I disagree with the outcomes here. But, more importantly, I am genuinely interested in understanding the basis for your conclusions. Possessive redirects have become a perennial topic at WP:RFD and WT:RE I am interested in understanding how others assess consensus on these issues. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yes, even if there were more numerically arguing in favor of deletion, Tavix and Lunamann thoroughly discussed their arguments, both of which have merit. This alone made me lean in favor of a no consensus close, partially due to the precedent set at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 24#FIFA's, but I consider that to be less relevant to my ultimate decision than what I am about to say.

Between your notification that the discussion closed with consensus and my closes, there was more than a week's time for participants to revise their responses, but absolutely no more activity ensued, which is why I consider them to be dead discussions that deserved closes. I could've relisted, but I don't think either discussion meet the criteria: there has been substantial participation based on policy (even if policy changed during the discussion due to the discussion you mentioned, there was a week's time to revise and develop further arguments), and again, there was absolutely no more activity since your notifications, which makes it unlikely that a consensus would be reached. Additionally, the discussions had already been relisted twice, and doing so for a third time would run contrary to WP:RELIST. I am aware that the MOS discussion may be instrumental in developing a new state of discussion, yet that does not mean the current state of the discussion is insufficient to determine a closure result. I think you could ask Tavix, Thryduulf and Patar knight if their stances have changed, but I consider the discussions themselves to have run their course, and that's why I closed. Hope this makes sense, thanks for reaching out! Cheers, HKLionel TALK 23:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can't say I'm on board with this but I appreciate your thoughtful deliberation and detailed response here. Thank you for your time, and for doing the important work of closing discussions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can't say I'm a RfD regular but I do pop in XfD in general from time to time, so I'm aware I might not be the best guy for the job—but then, someone has to do it, and in my view it was way overdue. HKLionel TALK 01:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s real benefit it having truly outside perspectives. There are pros and cons to having RfD regulars close contentious discussions on perennial topics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That too. Perhaps future nominations of the same calibre could use the MOS discussion to set precedent, but I think I'll turn my focus to other tasks now and won't go to RfD for another while. Good day, HKLionel TALK 01:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ebenezer Harcourt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at fifteen years old, Ebenezer Harcourt became the youngest footballer to play for the Nigeria national team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ebenezer Harcourt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ebenezer Harcourt), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi eddie Ethan7712 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]