Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. 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 main page. |
| Archive 1 |
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.
This has been open about a month. There's a clear consensus that the status quo is unacceptable, but it's not clear what to do about it. I'm inclined to close as delete and suggest that the retarget or disambiguate options be worked out through normal editing, but more input is welcome. — Wug·a·po·des 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, that's an interesting case. Agreed that status quo is not an option, but there's roughly equal support among the alternatives, so a bartender's close is called for. Deleting feels a bit like just kicking the can down the road, since it'd then just be recreated. I was most persuaded by the disambiguate folks, in part since I feel like the multiple possible targets presented is itself an argument for disambiguation, but I'm not sure if that'd be something appropriate for a closer to weigh. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think a close as 'disambiguate' makes sense here, given that there is 1) disagreement between people who !voted 'retarget' as to a proper target and 2) most of the 'delete' voters actually hinge their argument on their not being a clear redirect target, which is exactly what we have disambiguations for. Personally, I don't find the argument that we don't have other 'Discoverer of' redirects/DABs very convincing, particularly as I can find Discoverer of minor circulation and Discoverer of asteroids that do exist on a quick search. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion is complicated by the structural problem of our having two articles – History of the Americas and Settlement of the Americas – with fairly substantial (though not complete) overlap in coverage, such that it is fairly impossible to choose one or the other as the best target of the phrase. I don't think there is an ambiguity issue here, but an identity issue. If I were closing this, I would take the somewhat more involved route of writing a short WP:DABCONCEPT article at Discovery of the Americas to describe the controversy itself, along the lines of:
The discovery of the Americas refers to the earliest instances in which humans from various origins first saw and set foot on North America and South America, and explored, recorded, or reported the geographic characteristics of these continents. The phrase is controversial because of longstanding disputes as to whether it is appropriate to describe an already-populated region as being "discovered" when it is first encountered by those foreign to that territory, and as to which explorers can be considered the "first" to have discovered the region, when evidence exists of multiple independent discoveries by different explorers. More broadly, the phrase can refer not just to the first instance of discovery, but to the process by which the Americas were explored by persons intentionally seeking to map and describe the continents.
- Obviously, some sources would be needed for the propositions that these controversies exist. BD2412 T 14:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
This discussion has been open for nine days, with tons and tons of editors weighing in, to the point where I'm not sure continuing to leave it open would do much other than use up editorial energy perpetuating the debate. Does anyone want to take a read through it and consider a close? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- People are still commenting, and, unlike AfD, we do not have a fix term for these discussions, so I would just keep it open longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I would leave this open at least until new participation had wound down. This is a discussion complicated by real-world changes in the facts, and in the corresponding scope of the article, during the course of the discussion. If it were to be closed now, however, it looks like there is a consensus to merge. BD2412 T 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb and Ymblanter: At this point, I think the discussion can be closed. I see a raw majority favoring a merge, but do not see a clear consensus, but I think it could be closed as "no consensus" with an option to initiate a new discussion on the topic after one or two months. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I went ahead and closed it as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, thanks; I'm glad we're finally able to get the merge banner off the top of the page (albeit sadly after the pageview bump is over). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I went ahead and closed it as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sdkb and Ymblanter: At this point, I think the discussion can be closed. I see a raw majority favoring a merge, but do not see a clear consensus, but I think it could be closed as "no consensus" with an option to initiate a new discussion on the topic after one or two months. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
This RfC was raised following this discussion to contest the inclusion of 112.ua on the spam blacklist. The discussion at the RfC itself is split, with a majority favoring keeping it blacklisted, but a minority making valid arguments for its delisting. Normally that would be no consensus and result in the source remaining on the blacklist, but editors also allege that the 112.ua was never properly discussed, having been blacklisted based on the precedent of this disinformation-related RfC and only explicitly mentioned in this other discussion that occurred at roughly the same time as the RfC.
My impression upon reading the relevant discussions is that there was insufficient consensus in prior discussions to justify the addition of 112.ua to the blacklist, and that thus the status quo ante is invalid. The most recent RfC itself does not have the level of consensus necessary to justify blacklisting, and thus I think that the overall result should be that 112.ua be removed from the blacklist, but I'd appreciate a second opinion in case I missed something across the various discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: I see that this was archived without being formally closed. I think it is a close call. Opinions appear to be running about 2-to-1 in favor of keeping blacklisted, but some of the support votes are perfunctory in their reasoning. Nevertheless, I wouldn't change the status quo based on the discussion as it is. I would close it as no consensus to restore, and then possibly marshal arguments to initiate a new discussion in another few months. BD2412 T 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I agree with your assessment of the most recent discussion, but I think the issue is that it's unclear what the status quo is; when reading through the prior discussions, it does seem like 112.ua originally got added to the blacklist with basically no actual discussion. Given that, it seems improper to keep it listed in the absence of a consensus that would have justified its addition in the first place. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, if we say that there was never a proper consensus to blacklist, and unlist it, what is the next step after that? I would think it could then be proposed for blacklisting again, and a proper discussion could ensue. BD2412 T 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the ultimate outcome is going to be about the same either way, the question is just whether to keep it listed or unlist it in the meantime IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- The default status of websites is that they are not blacklisted, so I would assume that to be the state they should remain in until they are properly blacklisted. BD2412 T 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the ultimate outcome is going to be about the same either way, the question is just whether to keep it listed or unlist it in the meantime IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, if we say that there was never a proper consensus to blacklist, and unlist it, what is the next step after that? I would think it could then be proposed for blacklisting again, and a proper discussion could ensue. BD2412 T 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I agree with your assessment of the most recent discussion, but I think the issue is that it's unclear what the status quo is; when reading through the prior discussions, it does seem like 112.ua originally got added to the blacklist with basically no actual discussion. Given that, it seems improper to keep it listed in the absence of a consensus that would have justified its addition in the first place. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
My reading of this discussion is that there is consensus for some kind of partial move, but it's not clear what that move is. BD2412 T 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- To be clearer, I read this as consensus to move the titles for 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928 only, and no consensus to move the remaining (pre-1906) titles. BD2412 T 17:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
I was looking at this one now and was planning to close it, including making a private list of all 39 participants and how I would weigh their contributions, but since I would like to avoid taking this to DRV as a too controversial NAC I came here instead. My planned close was
This discussion has been a controversial one with a lot of participants. Numerically the opposers have a majority, but many of the oppose !votes either misunderstood the proposal, raised abstract concerns about implementation and did not respond to explanations or requests for specific issues with the testcases. These !votes were disregarded or given significantly less weight when determining the consensus. Most of the other opposers argued that the combined template would be harder to use or maintain, was a bad coding practice, or could lead to more confusion. These arguments and variations upon them were considered strong but were fewer in number than !votes supporting consolidation. As this is essentially a question of design philosophy both arguments were considered equally strong resulting in a rough consensus for the merger.
Does this close look fine? --Trialpears (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was previously musing how I would close it if I were going to (I'm not, since I'm involved in the first part, so I decided to lean in with a comment/vote instead), since it's quite an interesting case, and my thoughts were mostly as you wrote. Disclaimer of involvement being made, I saw the opposes grouped into ~3/4 categories (your statement addresses most of them). The only other real type of oppose was David Eppstein's, which received a few "per David" opposes. I think this one gets weighed less due to numerical reasons; the first part already created a strong (argument and numerical) consensus for the general idea of consolidating these hatnote templates in that way (the "Asian templates" were excluded solely for technical reasons). So for a new "this isn't how hatnotes should be treat" argument to prevail, in contradiction to already-established recent decision to consolidate, it'd need at least ~ equal consensus to overturn, which I don't see here. And in such a case it'd beg the question of what to do with the first set of merges. Whether this is worth mentioning in the close is a different matter. All in all, I think that's a good close as it is already written, but (again) take my words with a grain of salt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the close is an adequate summary of the discussion and reaches the correct conclusion. In terms of how to improve it, I would point out the previous TFD. In that prior discussion, editors seemed to be fine with the general idea of merging, but had concerns about the implementation for some templates. Having further refined the meta-template after the first TFD, we're now having a second TFD to determine whether the revised implementation is good enough to continue the process started in the first TFD. Among those who considered that question, the consensus seems to be yes (near-unanimously after the spurious and factually incorrect !votes are disregarded). All that remains now is David's opinion and similar arguments. I think those address a different (but still valid) question: should we be merging name hatnotes at all. The previous answer from the first TFD was yes, and I don't think this discussion demonstrates that the answer has changed. — Wug·a·po·des 02:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! I gave !votes echoing Davids concerns full weight as they are good faith and raise reasonable concerns. I don't believe the last discussion can be taken as a general consensus that all name hatnotes should be merged, just that those specific ones under discussion should and don't think it's suitable to give !votes less weight because of the previous discussion. The meta template is now significantly more complex and it can reasonably be argued that merging the simplest ones was the right choice but not more complex ones. Regardless of how exactly the !votes should be weighed (it doesn't affect the close in this case) I've added a line about the last discussion and closed it. --Trialpears (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Controversial one, and I now realise this is related to the so-called infobox wars. It proposes the deletion of Template:Composer sidebar and all of its transclusions. 3 batches of transclusions previously deleted, two closed by me, but about half of them for the rationale of unused, so take with grain of salt. Also applicable is WP:NAVBOX, the CENT-advertised sidebars in lead discussion, and tangentially ArbCom on general IB discussions. Also relevant is general TfD precedent against psuedo-infoboxes, for reasons such as the fact that they don't display on mobiles, accessibility concerns, etc.
My current reading as follows: tally is 5 keep, 6 delete. Reading arguments, and noting precedent, my current reading is consensus to delete this template (which is a psuedo-infobox), but for its transclusions there is no consensus on whether there should be a sidebar remaining afterwards, noting that multiple delete arguments aren't against a sidebar but against a psuedo-infobox. Such a close would require transclusion templates to be converted to regular sidebar usages, so the end result would look like a normal infobox (with the image and other labels), and a sidebar for navigation below. The sidebars may be renominated individually to be discussed, and the weighting of such a discussion would be impacted by the CENT discussion linked above. However, I also see a no consensus close as feasible (albeit unhelpful), and we can also wait for the CENT discussion to close which will possibly result in discouragement of sidebars in leads, which would add weight to the delete votes and perhaps result in a delete all close.
Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. BD2412 T 18:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I have had a look. My thinking on this is that the deletion of a template in relatively wide use should require a relatively clear consensus. To the extent that this discussion can be characterized as having a consensus, it seems to be very narrow one. If I were closing this discussion, I would close it as there being no clear consensus for the deletion of the templates, and I would further suggest taking up Robert Allen's suggestion of first attempting to address usage on more of a page-by-page basis, or perhaps a composer-by-composer basis, and revisit the template as a whole once that effort has progressed to a useful degree. This is just my interpretation of the discussion, and you are certainly free to disagree! BD2412 T 18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I think that's quite reasonable, BD! I see your point that a template with such wide usage, and (if I may add) a controversial history, should have a clearer consensus for deletion or, as my original reading was leaning towards, conversion. I have closed the discussion as no consensus, using a mixture of these thoughts. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now at DRV, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect that it would have ended up there no matter how it was closed. BD2412 T 07:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Now at DRV, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I think that's quite reasonable, BD! I see your point that a template with such wide usage, and (if I may add) a controversial history, should have a clearer consensus for deletion or, as my original reading was leaning towards, conversion. I have closed the discussion as no consensus, using a mixture of these thoughts. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
There is a clear consensus to rename the articles, but a hangup over whether the new titles should reflect the dates of birth of the subjects, or their nationality. I am inclined to close it with a move to titles including nationality, but closing either way will disappoint half of the participants in the original discussion, so I would welcome other opinions. BD2412 T 19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Eddie891, ProcrastinatingReader, Rosguill, Sdkb, Trialpears, Wugapodes, and Ymblanter: - pinging past discussion participants. Feel free to ignore (or respond). BD2412 T 00:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I endorse your approach. The discussion is essentially a wash, and nationality has a narrow edge. To further weaken the YOB camp's standing, the argument that nationality fluid in professional football is less relevant in this particular case, as both Mario Ortizes appear to have exclusively played for clubs their birth country. If this were already at YOB disambiguators I would probably close as no consensus, but given that the status quo is obviously inferior, we shouldn't let perfect get in the way of an improvement. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- The same thought occurred to me about nationality disambiguators for these subjects, but it can raise some hackles when a closer notes in closing a flaw in an argument that was not raised by other participants in the discussion. However, it is heartening that you also noticed that. BD2412 T 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, I endorse your approach. The discussion is essentially a wash, and nationality has a narrow edge. To further weaken the YOB camp's standing, the argument that nationality fluid in professional football is less relevant in this particular case, as both Mario Ortizes appear to have exclusively played for clubs their birth country. If this were already at YOB disambiguators I would probably close as no consensus, but given that the status quo is obviously inferior, we shouldn't let perfect get in the way of an improvement. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think closing as you suggest is the only correct option. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) is a guideline and says in 2a
If the footballers have different nationalities, use their nationality in the disambiguation
. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Disambiguating is also a guideline and similarly saysYears of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators
. Participants showed that the project-wide consensus is to prefer nationality over YOB when disambiguating, and while there may be an editing consensus at WP:FOOTBALL to prefer YOB, per WP:LOCALCON we need to weigh the project-wide guidance more heavily than WikiProject style guides. As you said, there's consensus to move, so you have some discretion, and given the P&Gs discussed, it seems community consensus is that you should prefer nationality over YOB when exercising that discretion. — Wug·a·po·des 03:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)- Thanks, pursuant to the evaluations above, I am comfortable closing the discussion as proposed now. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
Okay, this is a funny one. This follows Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war/Archive_14#Proposal:_Rename_to_"2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_War" closed by Wugapodes with what appears to be quite a weighted-by-arguments close.
By raw votes, support votes have an approximate 2/3 majority. To summarise arguments, by my initial reading:
- Support
- Due to the title of First Nagorno-Karabakh War saying First, implies a "Second" / WP:TITLECON
- This is the second war / This war relates to the first war
- Per nom [nom is somewhat iffy, so I'm inclined to treat these as weak votes] / per my reasoning in the previous discussion / per others / no substantative rationale -- the majority of votes
- Oppose
- No evidence given of RS using this term / name is OR / not commonly used in RS (w/ evidence)
- OSE arguments by supporters / First Nagorno-Karabakh War was a bad move
- [one argument:] This isn't really the "second war", and the first wasn't really the "first"
- Wait for sources
Whilst supporters have the numerical majority, I find many of their arguments wholly unconvincing with no basis in policy, notable lack of links or references to reliable sources, and mostly lacking in any other evidence. Meanwhile, opposers seemed to have arguments with a sounder basis in PAGs. On the "per my reasoning in prev discussion" arguments, I haven't read the Wugapodes discussion aside from the close, but the close makes me think Wugapodes was not convinced those arguments had much of a basis in policy. For these reasons I'm leaning towards no consensus here, but I'd like to grab some thoughts as this close would go against the numerical vote quite a bit. Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is certainly a close against the majority, so dust off your flak jacket. Since I was pinged, I want to point out that in the last RM. it wasn't that I wasn't convinced by the arguments, per se, but that opposers pointed to project wide consensus on what to do and supporters advocated ignoring it and/or doing their own thing. There's quite obviously a local consensus that editors working on the page would like it retitled, but that local consensus is not well motivated by policy. Per WP:CONLEVEL we've generally got to side with the project-wide consensus in that situation. Getting back to this discussion, the most compelling framing of the support argument is essentially "let's be consistent with the companion article". Now, consistency is part of the article naming criteria, but it is the least important of them also. While already on weak footing, the opposition raises concerns that the other article should never have been moved in the first place (and it seems the reasoning is more substantial than just sour grapes), so taken on its own turf that consistency argument faces a serious challenge. Even if we say--for the sake of analysis--that supporters have the stronger argument on consistency, the opposition raises a second challenge that goes largely unrebutted: OR and RS. Those are two policies with some of the widest consensus, and so per CONLEVEL those in favor of moving needed to show that the title is not unacceptable synthesis and has been used in reliable sources. That didn't happen, in the first or second move request, which makes me suspicious it will happen in a third move request. Personally, I'd close as consensus against in order to head off a third RM on the same issue, but given the numbers that's definitely the harder route. Regardless of whether it's framed as consensus against or no consensus, I think your reasoning and the ultimate result are correct. I'd suggest writing the close so that (1) it gives article regulars a realistic view of how future discussions will shake out given these two discussions and (2) it's as clear as possible to avoid wasting your time at move review. — Wug·a·po·des 21:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Wug, I agree with these thoughts. On your final point, controversial non-admin closes tend to be questioned more ime so I suspect there’s a decent chance it’ll end up at move review regardless if I close it, and consensus against would be very difficult to pull off indeed. Hence, if you or another admin reading this wishes to close that’s okay with me, as you’ll probably have more lee-way with your words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are you implying we aren't a completely egalitarian project??? I'd say be bold and make the close anyway. Sure, it will probably be challenged, but as long as you write up what you said here and take care to frame it well, I really doubt it would be overturned. I see challenges as just something to plan for rather than avoid; put another way, you avoid close challenges by writing as if it were already challenged. A close is in the meatball:WikiNow, and so the summary and result should be obviously correct to anyone reading the discussion regardless of whether you are there to explain it or not (c.f. with the motivations for textualism and New Criticism). If someone asks you specifically to comment on something, answer as best you can, but don't get sucked into explaining every detail. If you feel the need to explain something, it should have been in the close. If it's not in the close, it should be self evident to anyone reading the discussion. IMO that's why non-admin closes are more likely to be challenged or overturned. Obviously social capital is important to making a close stick, but more often than not I think it's an issue of drafting: the close isn't self contained. Important discussion points get missed (angering that faction), assumptions are left unsaid (resulting in good or bad faith misunderstandings), or dicta gets made that (while probably helpful) prejudices some faction into viewing an otherwise reasonable close as a SUPERVOTE. This is where social capital becomes useful because we need to mobilize human resources to resolve the tension that the close was supposed to resolve. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent, check out User:Wugapodes/Non-sysop closures if you want more meta-analysis. Moral of the story: you don't need the delete button to do a good job here. I dislike WP:NAC because the only people it discourages are the ones with circumspection which ironically are the exact people we want closing. You have everything you need and essentially already wrote the first draft in the OP. Remember I never said you couldn't pull it off, just that it would take more work on your end. You can certainly do it, and in fact I encourage it: you'll do a good job. — Wug·a·po·des 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Wug, I agree with these thoughts. On your final point, controversial non-admin closes tend to be questioned more ime so I suspect there’s a decent chance it’ll end up at move review regardless if I close it, and consensus against would be very difficult to pull off indeed. Hence, if you or another admin reading this wishes to close that’s okay with me, as you’ll probably have more lee-way with your words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm involved in this discussion, but I'll note that if this is not closed in favor of the move, it would probably be helpful to suggest next steps for reconciling the two articles' titles as part of the close. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I belatedly agree with the analysis offered by Wugapodes. This was a well-thought and conscientious close. I do think that it is the type of discussion that is likely to go to WP:MR no matter which direction the close goes, but it cannot be said to have merely been an effort at counting heads, or a supervote failing to account for arguments. BD2412 T 07:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
I am inclined to close this as consensus to move, and furthermore to change "center" to "centre" on the basis that sub-articles in two countries predominately using "centre" outweighs the U.S. use of "center". My feeling is that the longwinded argument demonstrates that either title is permissible, and the length of argument against the move does not override the numerical consensus favoring the move. BD2412 T 17:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that there's consensus to move. Not sure about "centre" v "center". The logic seems sound, although some folks love to debate ENGVAR so it may depend on if there's a discernible format in the discussion already and how many may object. In the 2019 discussion someone said
"Center" should not be switched to "centre" without a very good reason
. Granted WP:CONSISTENT is a thing, and (as you mention) Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom and Self-managed social centres in Italy use the "centre" format. Imo a close either way on that could be justified. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)- It is probably best if I just close as proposed by the original proposer, and leave the center/centre distinction for another discussion. BD2412 T 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion has now been closed per the above. BD2412 T 07:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Anyone still here?
This was a cool idea. I will post stuff here, if there's anyone actually watching it. jp×g 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I found that it filled a useful feature when I used it in October, but the usecases are quite rare (for me at least). Happy to comment here if I have something to contribute with. --Trialpears (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JPxG and Trialpears: I will make a New Year's resolution to keep a better eye on this board, and direct editors here as needed. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Same. jp×g 04:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- People didn't know about the page. I have navigationally connected it to other pages in some fashion (diff), so maybe it will see more activity. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I linked here from ANRFC. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- People didn't know about the page. I have navigationally connected it to other pages in some fashion (diff), so maybe it will see more activity. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Same. jp×g 04:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JPxG and Trialpears: I will make a New Year's resolution to keep a better eye on this board, and direct editors here as needed. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I still watch the page, but as Trialpears mentioned, the use case is somewhat rare. In my experience, this board is targeted more towards newer closers looking for feedback on reading consensus in complex discussions. Another issue that Alalch fixed is that it wasn't well known outside the initial trial group, so once they gained skills in reading consensus, there were fewer posts. I think more dedicated efforts to direct interested editors here would be a positive, and maybe help reduce the backlog at Closure requests if editors know they can get guidance before being dragged to AN for a close review. — Wug·a·po·des 21:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikileaks RfC
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.
Pinging some recent posters and some people that have closed tough RSN discussions: @BD2412, Trialpears, Rosguill, Primefac, Wugapodes, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.
Wondering if I can get some thoughts on this discussion? It's quite split between option 1/2 and 4, with likely a numerical majority for the former (I haven't counted the numbers exactly), however reading the arguments tells a more unified picture. I think the diversity in whether people chose 1/2 or 4 depended on which angle people approached the question.
My reading is that there seems to be agreement that Wikileaks is reliable in the sense that it doesn't make up documents and has a process to verify the authenticity of the documents. For example: if it publishes a stash of documents where the purported author is the Chinese government, those documents could be cited as if they were accessed from a Chinese government website. This, of course, makes them primary sources, which comes onto the concerns of option 4 voters; that these documents cannot be used as reliable sources.
Where it gets more weird is when you consider the nature of Wikileaks. Some participants noted that Wikileaks is more like Dropbox or Scribd than a 'news source'. Except it can't be compared by analogy to either of those since it isn't a hosting service for other peoples' uploads, it publishes a very specific scope of documents and it does vetting for the authenticity of the documents. Some users compared it to a self-published source such as YouTube (or Twitter), but it's not quite comparable to that either. Hence, even if the conclusion in my last paragraph is the consensus, I feel like it's largely unhelpful/useless to only say that, particularly without giving an example of when the source can be used. And on that note, I'm having a tough time thinking of when a classified leaked government document could actually be used as per WP:PRIMARY, which I think largely comes to the option 4 concerns.
Posting this here since a lot of different relevant policies were quoted by users, and I think the nature of Wikileaks is quite unique such that it doesn't fit into any box easily, which I think makes this a difficult close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't gone through the thread in detail, but my sense is that the primary nature of the source makes a reliability discussion somewhat moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I dunno, really. Some folks are saying that courts have used their documents and that they have a vetting process. Others have said there is no vetting but I don't see them rebutting the claims of vetting and others cite security experts and dodgy connections of Assange. Some folks have raised concerns that Wikileaks isn't so much a source as much as a platform where documents sourced to others are put on. I am not so sure that I would want to close this, it feels like "Wikileaks is the source" is an implicit premise of the RfC and I don't see agreement on that point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- It strikes me as a reaffirmation of WP:PRIMARY. I think there's no consensus on whether WikiLeaks counts as "reliably published" for purposes of that policy, but I only skimmed. Essentially, it is fine to use documents published by WikiLeaks for straightforward, factual statements about the claims made in the document, but any analysis, interpretation, synthesis, or evaluation must be cited to secondary sources. — Wug·a·po·des 05:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking for a co-closer
Assuming this board isn't dead and posting here...
I'm thinking about closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discord logs. I'd like for a person (preferably one without a Discord account) to co-close it with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @MJL: Sorry for the long lapse. This board will be revived. BD2412 T 04:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Sanity check on an WP:NCRET close
ResolvedHey, let's see if anyone's still paying attention to this board.
So Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 § Getting wet is a bit of a mess. With 12 !voters, the most support any one position is able to command is 4 for "Get Wet", but there's two explicit oppose !votes against that, so that's 4 for, 2 explicitly against, 6 implicitly neutral/against, definitely not a consensus.
Sometimes these kinds of thing result in no consensus, default to delete. If that's the right call here, I'll just wait for an admin to come along and close. But having thought about this a bit, deletion would also go against the preference of 9 out of 12 !voters (there's 2 delete and 1 second-choice delete), and there's one thing that no one's explicitly opposed, and 1 editor has spoken generally in favor of without outright endorsing, which is redirecting to wikt:get wet. Thus, I think the fairest close would be no consensus, default Wiktionary redirect.
My reading of WP:NCRET is that this is within my discretion as closer, but I'm wary of this coming off as a supervote, so I'd appreciate feedback here. Courtesy pings @MJL, BD2412, JPxG, Trialpears, Wugapodes, and ProcrastinatingReader as repeat past participants here. (Would ping Rosguill, the only past participant I can see with significant RfD experience, but this happens to be their nom.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- If it were up to me, I would find that the dissension in the discussion indicates that the term is clearly ambiguous, and create a disambiguation page at Getting wet, with the disambiguation terms being Vaginal lubrication, Moisture, and Wetting, and a cross-referencing "see also" to Get Wet (disambiguation). I would not in the close that editors who think that "Getting wet" and "Get Wet" are too close to have separate disambiguation pages are free to propose a merge of those pages, and gain consensus for that step. BD2412 T 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's no consensus to retarget to "Get Wet" or to "Wet", particularly given the argument about the irrelevance of some entries. There's no consensus to delete. There's no consensus to keep as-is. So a dab page is likely the solution most would find acceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BD2412 and ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks. That's a good point about DABbing, a possibility I hadn't given enough thought to. That's what I've gone with, also noting a few other potential next steps. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I am inclined to close this as delete, but the discussion is... strange. Most of the comments both for and against deletion are by the same two multi-voting brand new editors who have only ever worked on this article and its deletion discussion (one is the nominator). BD2412 T 03:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- This AFD has a handful of low edit count editors, it needs more participation from experienced editors to participate. That's just my initial opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz:, thanks, my inclination to delete was fed by the suspicious nature of that participation from low edit count editors, but the obvious solution was indeed to relist with a note calling out that fact. BD2412 T 03:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is currently a deletion review of the discussion here. It may be useful to watch it. A few of the same editors from the AFD came over to the DRV. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Liz:, thanks, my inclination to delete was fed by the suspicious nature of that participation from low edit count editors, but the obvious solution was indeed to relist with a note calling out that fact. BD2412 T 03:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe that this is a WP:SNOW keep at this point, with no reasonable possibility of a consensus to delete arising (with over a hundred editors weighing in, !votes are about three to one in favor of keeping), and with additional developments and sources continuing to arise, which make a reversal substantially unlikely. I realize that this could just be left to run for the duration of the AfD process, but that seems like a waste of time at this point. BD2412 T 03:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my view, early closures of discussions are best reserved for cases where there is near-unanimous support. When there is significant opposition, it's generally better to let discussion proceed. isaacl (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022
- That is probably right. BD2412 T 03:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've had my eye on this, and I'm tempted to snow close it, since I don't see any possible way it could turn around, which is the main criterion. But I think it'd probably get some pushback this early; try now if you're feeling particularly bold, or wait if not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The point of early closures is to expedite process when there is no dispute regarding the issue under discussion, and not to predict how a closer will evaluate consensus based on the contributions to-date. If discussion is proceeding productively without rancor, it's often best to let everyone have their say. Otherwise, an early closure just becomes another item to dispute afterwards. isaacl (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Generally agree with isaac, better to let this run the full week. Process is important, especially with high-visibility topics, and keeping it open the full week makes sure that everyone feels heard with minimal cost. WP:SNOW isn't policy after all, so we're under no obligation to close things early. — Wug·a·po·des 05:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. SNOW is for shortcutting discussions that are not necessary to run out to exhaustion but I agree that this is not one of those discussions. The number of Keep arguments is overwhelming but the quality of them is highly variable. This issue, and the possible canvassing, requires a WP:NHC evaluation after a full discussion period. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't SNOW-close it either, partly because of the process-is-important philosophical issues that Wugapodes describes, but partly also for practical reasons: it's very likely that an aggrieved delete !voter would appeal to WP:DRV, and while the closure would likely be endorsed it would still lead to another week of drama, meaning that the SNOW closure would have saved no time at all. Best to wait the full seven days: that way, the final outcome will at least be something that everyone can accept as legitimate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. SNOW is for shortcutting discussions that are not necessary to run out to exhaustion but I agree that this is not one of those discussions. The number of Keep arguments is overwhelming but the quality of them is highly variable. This issue, and the possible canvassing, requires a WP:NHC evaluation after a full discussion period. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thinking aloud, it seems like an WP:IAR case to close with no prejudice to re-nominating at a future date. Only time will tell if this has WP:EFFECT or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to merit a "true" keep. In the meantime, there really is no way this will be deleted now. This is a common situation with trending current events. Seems the only reason to keep open is for process itself.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Leave open at least a full 168 hours. The AfD serves as an excellent receptacle of knee jerk reaction, and is of great benefit to the article talk page. An early close serves no benefit, and creates new complaints, such as disenfranchising weekend editors from being heard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - it seems El C has mooted this discussion with a bold expedited close as "keep". BD2412 T 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was worried on seeing the length of the close, fearing a closer’s personal editorialising, and the word “bold” in the 2nd sentence heightened the fear. But there close was quite good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I see no broad consensus in this discussion, and would close it as keeping the parent category Category:Songs about religion, while upmerging the rest into it. I am given pause by the fact that this discussion has remained open for so long, and want to be sure others are not seeing something that I am missing with respect to this assessment of consensus. BD2412 T 04:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: this was ultimately closed as proposed, but by another closer. BD2412 T 14:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Best practices for procedural closes of AfDs?
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busy work (2nd nomination), I !voted "keep", as did the other two participants (that is to say, there was no comment advocating deletion aside from the nomination statement itself). Afterwards, the nominator struck through this statement and added "Nomination withdrawn" beneath it. To me, it seems completely unambiguous that their intention was to close the AfD as withdrawn, and that consensus to do so is unanimous. My question, then, is whether it is condign for me to close the discussion as "withdrawn". I suspect that the answer is "no", since I participated in it, but I am curious as to what the general opinion is on this. jp×g 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it would draw scrutiny if you closed it, as this would merely be formalizing the withdrawal of the nomination. That said, I'll do it now. BD2412 T 21:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I performed a NAC of this discussion, on the basis of unanimous consensus to delete, and tagged the article as {{G6}} (with the intention of reverting my close if the G6 was declined). However, asking around, I get the impression that this may not have been compliant with process, so I would be interested in feedback (and if anything ought to be done about the situation). jp×g 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- An admin agreed and pushed the delete button, so there's nothing to be done now, but for future reference the general consensus is you shouldn't do this because all it does is shunt things from one queue (the old AfDs queue) to another (the CSD queue). Other types of deletion discussions, with fewer active admin closers than AfD, are more tolerant of non-admin delete closes. On the merits, a delete close was correct, of course. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hadn't considered that; I suppose I will just have to wait on those. jp×g 08:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow, a discussions for discussion forum, so meta! I hope I'm in the right place; editor JPxG directed me here.
This is about the ongoing and hotly contested AfD debate, in regards to the article about recent suspension of journalist Twitter accounts that happened under Musk's direction.
The current AfD discussion is far from over, and should be allowed to run its course, but in my opinion (and at the request of several other editors), it might be nice for this to be eventually closed by a small panel of admins, if possible?
If I should post this plea for help elsewhere (such as at WP:Closure requests) then please let me know, thanks!!
Your assistance and consideration of this matter is very much appreciated!
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:Closure requests would be the place to request a panel. This board is more for individual closers to get a second opinion on their reading of consensus before closing a given discussion. BD2412 T 14:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Great, thanks!! Just posted this request over there instead. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This discussion pertains to some paragraphs that one editor removed and posted an explanation of their removal on the talk page of the article. One other (relatively new) editor wasn't happy with the removal, made some arguments against removing it, and has now requested the discussion be formally closed.
My view on this is that this discussion simply doesn't require a closure, it's a normal discussion about content in the article; only 3 people are involved in the discussion, clearly, they disagree, and that's fine. I think I should point the requestor to the RFC process, and maybe an essay or two on how to achieve consensus?
Would doing this be appropriate? If so, would removing the request for closure, with a {{Not-done}} also be appropriate? Or should I just direct them to RFC and leave it alone? JeffUK (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've closed this as 'Not done' and given them some advice on consensus building, [1]. I would appreciate any feedback on this approach. JeffUK (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is correct. There was not a call for a specific outcome so much as a general discussion of propriety, and the discussion itself seems to be continuing (on a rather glacial pace). There is nothing here that requires a formal closure. BD2412 T 17:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I intend to close this incongruous "Requested move not to move" that was started based on a premise that a 2019 move needs to be ceremonially ratified in a bureaucratic excercise of pure process-for-the-sake-of-process. It is also very evident that it contests a (hypothetical) move to "Non-fiction"; however, no one proposes a move to non-fiction so this is a non-issue. (The page was moved in 2019 from Non-fiction to Nonfiction which does not seem to have been contested.) There's no reason for a RM. I commented in the thread with a "procedural close" comment. Regardless, I consider myself to be uninvolved because I was addressing a procedural issue. Is it appropriate if I procedurally close it? —Alalch E. 12:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to view a proposal like this as an inherent statement that the bold move should be undone and then the page moved per consensus rather than by fiat. I would just let the discussion run for the requisite period and then close it according to what consensus develops in the discussion, or the lack thereof. BD2412 T 16:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. My concern is that it could result in a paradoxical no consensus due to lack of clarity and possible lack of participation, while at the same time there is ample evidence and clarity regarding there being an WP:EDITCON-type consensus that the bold move in 2019 was correct. This undermines the principle of WP:BOLDness. But I will heed your advice. —Alalch E. 16:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- A corollary of this would be that the interested editor who is guided by the right impulse to make category names consistent with the main topic will think that the precondition that there be consensus for "Nonfiction" has not been fulfilled which means that the idea behind all of this will be stifled. —Alalch E. 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. My concern is that it could result in a paradoxical no consensus due to lack of clarity and possible lack of participation, while at the same time there is ample evidence and clarity regarding there being an WP:EDITCON-type consensus that the bold move in 2019 was correct. This undermines the principle of WP:BOLDness. But I will heed your advice. —Alalch E. 16:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JPxG: Second opinion? BD2412 T 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- A bit late, but I think Alalch's close was a good one. jp×g 18:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Update: I NAC'd the discussion, after thinking more about it, based on my strongly held views around policy. Immediately afterwards it was revealed that the RM nominator was mistaken in their belief that the RM had been recommended (it wasn't; easy to find on the talk page). What was recommended was CfD. They started a CfD (Jan 16). —Alalch E. 18:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Should this be closed? The talk page hasn't been active at all lately (seemingly, the only activity in the last couple months is people asking if it can be closed). The RfC was prompted by an ArbCom motion, though, so it seems like it would be difficult for a non-arbitrator to just close it sua sponte. jp×g 18:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee rescinded the remedy for an RfC, so the community is free to proceed as it wishes. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to close stale proposed mergers as part of my work on WikiProject Merge. Since it has been a while since I closed a non-unambiguous discussion, I am asking for input from the experienced closers here.
Although the number of editors for and against is balanced, it initially seemed to me that proposer is the only one who's arguments are based on relevant policy, namely on the fact that there is overlap and that they are better understood in context, as well as the combined article not being too long. Neither of the other arguments seem to go beyond saying that the two topics are not identical, and making an OTHERSTUFF argument. On the other hand, WP:Merge does say that discrete topics with enough sources is an argument against a merger, so perhaps this gives enough backing to opposers' !votes to close as no consensus? Felix QW (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Was closed as no consensus by ClydeFranklin. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been open since April and really needs to be closed. I personally see no consensus here - the nomination has two users in support and three in opposition, and despite the large amount of back-and-forth arguing and bold actions (including a related move request also closed as "no consensus") neither side has gained any headway convincing the other one. The underlying dispute, as to whether dukes and lords of Milan are sufficiently related to be categorized together, is not something in which there are any clear overriding guidelines I can use to bring it to any other resolution. Thoughts? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I would concur that there is an absence of consensus for a specific change in this discussion, and would agree with closing it accordingly. BD2412 T 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've closed it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery, oops. I got your ping on that one, but closing it must have slipped my mind. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Overly long discussions
I have been wondering how to determine the consensus in overly long discussions that may have 40 print-pages worth of text. I am a very detailed-oriented person so I would try to build a spreadsheet, define standards and sets, compare and analyze each comment. Such endeavor could take me weeks. How do you do it? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: I tend to copy the entire discussion into a subpage, and then carve away everything that is surplusage. I have been involved in some humdingers that I processed through such methods — the 156+ vote AfD on Jamie Kane, the the 132+ vote AfD on Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), and (as part of a 3-admin panel) the 301+ vote Chelsea Manning/Bradley RM discussion. I think there is something to be said for keeping as much of the work on-site as possible. BD2412 T 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. How much work in time should one of such closures take? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- For something of that length, I have on occasion put in a few hours. Really not more than that, although panel closes require coordinating time as well. BD2412 T 04:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. How much work in time should one of such closures take? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
A tale of an RfC
A number of months ago, I created WP:LLM, which was initially a very small and concise summary of how existing policies applied to large language models. Pretty quickly, people started adding to it, and for a while we were going back and forth thinking of new things and tacking them on wherever there seemed to be lacunae. While this resulted in a great information page/essay, unfortunately, it also resulted in the page having some dozens and dozens of provisions -- something virtually impossible to hold an adoption RfC for.
At some point, a few of the major editors agreed that it might be worth trying to trim the page down, or make a separate (much smaller) page and then try to get that approved through an RfC. I was going to do this (and I swear, officer, I was right on my way to get it taken care of!) but in the meantime, I see that someone has started a giant WP:CENT-listed RfC at WT:LLM, which is not looking great (nine for promotion, thirteen against). Should I just go ahead and write the abridged version and CENT that, or what? jp×g 07:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ack, that's a classic tale of WP:CREEP, and not an easy situation to navigate. Your main options are to either start a subsection within the RfC or wait until it closes and try then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Frankly, I would wait it out. Beginning a parallel discussion (or a subsection of a going discussion) is a recipe for conflation and confusion. BD2412 T 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Another exceedingly-long discussion that has been open since June and listed at WP:CR since August 15. There's clearly not a consensus for the original proposal, and the participants seem to have acknowledged that fact. I don't think there's quite a consensus for the alt proposal either, with four people clearly in support, three people clearly opposed, and then a lot of participants who haven't explicitly commented on it despite being pinged. There's a second alt proposal of "People from country by county/province/state", which is much closer to a consensus with nobody (or maybe only one person) explicitly objecting to it, but given the complexity of the discussion, it's obscurity relative to the two main proposals, and the fact that it isn't fully-defined, it isn't really right to close it as a consensus that way either.
What all three sides come down to (except for a few participants who didn't explain their reasoning) is a question of what various words in the English language mean/how users will interpret them. And I don't feel as closer I have any overriding guidelines to rely on to draw a consensus out of this tangle. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- (As nom) this is pretty much why I wanted to close the discussion and start a new one for the alt proposal. Oh well. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery, who are the three people opposed to the alt? I can see two, Happily and Paul. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- You missed Laurel Lodged. And yes, I agree with you - the longer and more complicated a discussion gets the less likely it is to produce an actionable consensus. I think if you had relisted with alt2 instead then that might have come to a consensus, but that's water under the bridge now. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could close this discussion, and then I could start a new nomination using alt2? I don't have a particular preference on alt1/2. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose that would have the unfortunate effect of pinging the same people again. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think that it is worth noting, as a metacommentary to the discussion, that Laurel Lodged is now indef-banned by ArbCom for certain conduct arising out of CfD discussions. I would therefore recommend striking or disregarding their contributions to the discussion.
- On the substantive matter, I would agree with closing this CfD as "no consensus" for any specified resolution, and starting over. BD2412 T 23:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've closed it as no consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I've finally gotten around to reopening this. I have the updated list at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/47. It looks good to me, what do you think? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: by all means, go ahead. I'm sorry my previous advice worked out as a waste of time. I suggest the fresh nomination should state that the target names follow the names of parent categories, but move the splitter "by X" to the end following recent precedents. Leave out the few marked in that list as "keep" or "defer". – Fayenatic London 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Although the more I look at that list, the more I'm still finding to change! There is a choice according to which parent category's pattern should predominate, e.g Category:Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan or Category:Pakistani people. We could nominate all the people categories to follow one pattern. But it's probably safer to leave some aside for later. Maybe nominate your list, then come back another time with the sub-cats of Category:People by country and city to see if there will be consensus to change those to follow the "Nationality people" parents instead. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll nominate the list as is. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, including your modifications. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll nominate the list as is. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I've finally gotten around to reopening this. I have the updated list at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/47. It looks good to me, what do you think? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've closed it as no consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose that would have the unfortunate effect of pinging the same people again. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could close this discussion, and then I could start a new nomination using alt2? I don't have a particular preference on alt1/2. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- You missed Laurel Lodged. And yes, I agree with you - the longer and more complicated a discussion gets the less likely it is to produce an actionable consensus. I think if you had relisted with alt2 instead then that might have come to a consensus, but that's water under the bridge now. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: I have just come across Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_6#Sub_category_pages_of_Category:People_by_first-_(and_second-)_level_administrative_country_subdivision which was closed as rename all to "People by Foo in Country". I have not traced what has happened since. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, bizzare. It seems quite a few of them were deleted by the closing admin (not all), but the target cat4egories weren't created. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Target categories appear to have been constructed in some manner, per the list at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1, currently under discussion. BD2412 T 19:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The 2008 discussion was closed as an alt rename, which is why the proposed targets are red. The new targets were created using the bot account. And a lot of the rename proposals in the current discussion (which has been closed as snow rename - I personally would have let it run at least seven days before closing) are of categories created after the 2008 CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I traced this list of the renames processed by the closer in 2008. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, bizzare. It seems quite a few of them were deleted by the closing admin (not all), but the target cat4egories weren't created. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: As you know, ClydeFranklin snowball-closed the 1 October nomination as Rename. I left it a few days in case of complaints, and am not aware of any being made. But I have just looked at the list again, and it has lots of targets "Bar from Foo by X" where the parents are "Fooian bar", so the target should be "Fooian bar by X". Sorry, evidently I didn't check the list as thoroughly as I thought. Rats… Well, as they are still tagged, how about we revise the list on the talk page and reopen the CFD? – Fayenatic London 13:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I think the rest of them can be processed and we can reopen the discussion with the ones that need revising. Though I don't have any particular issues with renominating all of them. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I recently closed the WP:RM at Talk:The Expendables 4#Requested move 25 September 2023. I don't think anyone disputes that the outcome was no consensus, but there is a post-discussion dispute as to what constitutes the status quo ante to which the title should default absence such a consensus. The move history of the article, in short, is:
- Moved from draft to mainspace at The Expendables 4 in October 2021.
- Brief back-and-forth in early May 2022 with an editor trying to move the page to Expend4bles, and another moving it back to The Expendables 4
- Unsuccessful RM in May 2022 (closed early because the nom was a sock)
- Boldly moved in June 2023 to Expend4bles
- Bold move reverted in September 2023, taking the title back to The Expendables 4
- WP:RM in September 2023 proposing to move the title back to Expend4bles
Am I correct in finding that in the absence of consensus, the title defaults to The Expendables 4? I won't be bruised if I'm told I have gotten it wrong, I just want to be sure my reasoning is sound. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree that The Expendables 4 is the status quo ante. June 23 to September 23 is not a long enough timeframe to consider it the default title, especially when there have been moves/RMs in the past. Jenks24 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
A tricky CfD that has been open since October 5. The basic outlines of the discussion are clear - there's a consensus to rename somewhere, but no clear consensus on where and a lengthy back-and-forth has failed to clarify matters. This unfortunately leaves which name to give the category unclear. I'm personally inclined to close with the original rename as it received slightly more support (3 users vs. two), but I'm interested in hearing what others here think. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- It seems clear that the original rename is preferable to the status quo, but with regards to broadening the category scope it seems unclear. I would close it as you suggested, especially since the proposed broadening of the category very likely would involve Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers and Category:Kantō Massacre deniers which hasn't been discussed properly. --Trialpears (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery, looks like a tricky case to me. I'm not sure there's really a stronger argument one way or the other, both rename targets have problems but are probably preferable to the status quo. What I would say is to go with the nom's target by default, but note that the category can be CfD'd again i.e. it might need another discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you. I've closed it that way. There are a few other old CfDs at WP:CR that need attention and but at this point I'm involved in all but one of them. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Post-close endorsement of the above evaluation. This is a correct close. BD2412 T 17:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pppery, feel free to ping me if there are any discussions I'm not involved in that need closing. I'm happy to do so. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you. I've closed it that way. There are a few other old CfDs at WP:CR that need attention and but at this point I'm involved in all but one of them. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The last unclosed CfD from October I'm not involved in. This is an example of a phenomenon I've seen in plenty of other occasions: a proposal gets lots of support, and then a late opposition argument comes in making a point nobody else considered, and then despite the discussion remaining open for weeks there are no further comments. Neither a "no consensus" closure (since in the abstract there is a consensus) nor a "merge" closure (which would amount to practically discrediting Andejons' input solely because they arrived a day late) really feels right, and we can't really relist either since that was tried two weeks ago without getting anywhere. Thoughts? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- This has now received a late comment that pushed it into clearly "no consensus" territory, but I'd still be interested in seeing how people would have closed it yesterday. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pppery, in that situation I would first of all consider relisting, given it's only been relisted once, and the point of contention could do with more discussion. Failing that, I think it would fall somewhere between no consensus and merge/split as nominated. There is more support for it, and the arguments n favour seem stronger, so I would likely close it that way, but a no consensus close would also be reasonable.
Given the current situation, I would suggest relisting it, maybe waiting a few days to see if Andejons responds. Barring that, probably a no consensus close. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)- I've just closed as no consensus. I consider the idea of relisting a discussion that has already been open for 29 days ridiculous. The implied rule to not relist discussions more than twice should really be interpreted as to not relist discussions that have already been open for more than two weeks - the length of time a discussion has been open is more important then how many times someone has pushed a button. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Off on a tangent here, but: as someone normally opposed to relisting in agreement with you, I think placing strict limits on how a long a discussion should be open / how many relists it should go for is unhelpful. If there's a discussion that would benefit from a 6th relist, or whatever, then that should be done. If I had my way, basically every discussion with a late-but-strong point raised would get relisted for further input – often such a discussion just grows older and older for a week anyway before being closed in some frustrating fashion; a relist might as well happen. But in general, the right balance for non-AfD XfDs is somewhere around 1 relist. J947 ‡ edits 02:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- For example, even the very first discussion for discussion, though it was resolved amicably, took a week from my very very late comment to closure. (and apparently I said then it should have been relisted too, rather presumptuously) – gosh, was that 3 years ago already? It's as a clear as a bell to me... J947 ‡ edits 02:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pppery, my view is that discussions on old CfD pages like this one are much less liklier to get further comments than one on a more recent discussion page. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Off on a tangent here, but: as someone normally opposed to relisting in agreement with you, I think placing strict limits on how a long a discussion should be open / how many relists it should go for is unhelpful. If there's a discussion that would benefit from a 6th relist, or whatever, then that should be done. If I had my way, basically every discussion with a late-but-strong point raised would get relisted for further input – often such a discussion just grows older and older for a week anyway before being closed in some frustrating fashion; a relist might as well happen. But in general, the right balance for non-AfD XfDs is somewhere around 1 relist. J947 ‡ edits 02:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've just closed as no consensus. I consider the idea of relisting a discussion that has already been open for 29 days ridiculous. The implied rule to not relist discussions more than twice should really be interpreted as to not relist discussions that have already been open for more than two weeks - the length of time a discussion has been open is more important then how many times someone has pushed a button. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pppery, in that situation I would first of all consider relisting, given it's only been relisted once, and the point of contention could do with more discussion. Failing that, I think it would fall somewhere between no consensus and merge/split as nominated. There is more support for it, and the arguments n favour seem stronger, so I would likely close it that way, but a no consensus close would also be reasonable.
- I think relists aren't really used in the same way at AfD where the expectation is that all discussions are closed or relisted within a day. There a relist is always used when a discussion shouldn't be closed at that time since they otherwise would be reviewed by multiple potential closers wasting time. At TfD, CfD and possibly other forums I'm not as familiar with leaving a discussion open without relisting is an option it will still get input, perhaps even more than if it was relisted since it's in the backlog of old discussions. If the discussion has been sitting for this long I don't think a relist is helpful with the except if the discussion is advertised elsewhere (usually WikiProjects) or additional pages are tagged at the same time as the relist.
- In this specific case I would probably have pinged the two support per nom people, asked if their opinion has changed based on the points brought up by Andejons, which probably would make the outcome clearer. --Trialpears (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well at CfD, the current practice when relisting is to copy/paste the entire discussion to today's (the current) CfD page. So it gets immediate view along with every new discussion. So relisting isn't necessarily a bad idea in this case. - jc37 07:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Dealing with alleged canvassing
Talk:Israel#Request for Comment on apartheid charges has come up on WP:CR. At the top of that discussion, there are warnings that editors may have been inappropriately canvassed to the discussion; one editor says that it is specifically those prone to opposing the proposition. How should a closer deal with such a situation? I tried looking at WP:CANVASS but it didn't have much advice. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I usually take a notice of canvassing as more of a reason to scrutinize participation (are there a lot of WP:SPA participants, are they offering cookie-cutter regurgitations of the same argument, are they grounding their arguments in encyclopedic policy). With a high-profile subject like this one, I am not terribly worried that canvassing will result in a substantial shift of the outcome. BD2412 T 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Standard Chinese ⇥ Chinese language merger
Talk:Chinese language#Change "dialects" wording? Just realized I have a good one to break the DfD ice. :)
Basically, there were originally two contemporaneous, interrelated merge discussions, the one in the title and another regarding other Chinese varieties that has since been closed with consensus not to merge. This one seems pretty cut and dry to me as consensus not to merge also, and there's been no discussion for a while, and even longer specifically about the merger in question, so it seems no one is actively suggesting it. Remsense留 20:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- The thing with discussions like this is that they lack a focused proposal, and therefore meander around to a lot of points and possibilities. I do not see a consensus in this discussion for any specific action. BD2412 T 03:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Two RfC options walk into a bar.
Okay, so let's say there is a RfC on Cletus von Buttscratcher with two options for the lead:
- Option 1: call him an "arsonist and exiled nobleman".
- Option 2: call him an "exiled nobleman" and mention the conviction later in the lead.
Then there are a bunch of comments, and Option 2 is clearly preferred -- but a few people are saying stuff that makes no sense. Alice says "Option 2: The article shouldn't mention the arson at all because there's no consensus among contemporary scholarship that he actually did it
".
And Bob says "Option 2: The RfC opener is correct to say that we should not mention the arson at all
" (even though the actual option 2 clearly says the opposite of this). Or maybe even you get Claire saying "Option 2: We absolutely need to mention that he was an arsonist in the first sentence and the Option 1 people saying we should mention it later in the lead are wrong. Option 2 -- two -- the second one -- is the right one.
"
What are we to make of this? Do these people's comments count towards a consensus for option 2 even if they seem to be completely mistaken about what it says? Should they be ignored by the closer as meaningless noise? Should they be stripped of their noble titles? It seems like a bizarre edge case and I am not quite sure. jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think the first two examples can be considered support for 2 over 1 as well as support for an unarticulated Option 3: don't mention the arson at all, and that the discussion can be safely closed as a consensus for 2 while taking them into account as a slightly-differentiated minority view. The third example articulates clear support for Option 1 and should not be taken as support for Option 2 (after all, it's a discussion, note a vote). signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would suggest ignoring what they say they are !voting for, and only consider the strength of their arguments.
Of course, you always just ask them to clarify their !votes. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)- More generally, this is one of the problems with encouraging people to vote by providing them with a handy list of numbered options. If the options aren't strictly binary ("Shall we include this photo?" – there's no "compromise" option that will have that particular photo sort of in the article and sort of out of it), then you either end up with a long (and often growing) list of options, or people pick a number and write whatever they want after it.
- On a related point, I have proposed at WT:RFC that we consider encouraging people who created RFCs with (usually needless, often inappropriate) ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== sections to put the discussion before the votes. Having to scroll past a discussion might help voters understand what they're voting on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- One tip that I can offer from my years in legal practice is to ask extremely leading and presumptive questions (or even rebuttable assertions) in such cases. For example, "Bob, my understanding of your !vote is that you consider Option 2, 'call him an "exiled nobleman" and mention the conviction later in the lead', to be the better option of the two options offered. Please correct me if you intended otherwise". Now the burden is on Bob to explain himself, and if he doesn't then you can count his !vote towards your stated interpretation of it. BD2412 T 01:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Interpretation of "widespread consensus"
Dear editors,
I am eyeing to close this discussion. In short, editors want to modify the article size guideline but without resorting to an RfC, which I personally know are tedious to maintain and drain a lot of our time. A user (VQuakr) objected by saying that with 14 editors, there is not enough quorum to say that the change gained widespread consensus (It could be 14-0 and you still wouldn't have quorum for this.
)
WP:PGCHANGE does not require RfCs to change guidelines but it does require that the changes either be done "with no objection" or by "widespread consensus". There are a couple of objections here but not to the level that would prevent the finding of rough consensus. But does such discussion have enough participation to have the widespread consensus label? That's my question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- As a general rule, those affected by guidance (be it a process, procedure, or formal guideline or policy) should be made aware of proposed changes and given the opportunity to discuss and influence the proposal. For better or worse, in this case, personally I feel that an advertised request for comments would be a better way to reach more interested parties, as it would help establish a broader consensus view of the community's opinions on something that does affect many editors. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The discussion is now closed Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I find that a lot of objections related to RFCs are based on an editor's personal perception that their side is "losing". We all believe that our own views are sensible and rational and proportionate and at least somewhat well-informed, and we generally trust the other experienced editors to be approximately as sensible and rational, etc. as ourselves, so if the result of the discussion is clearly different from my view, then we start by assuming that something has gone very wrong with the discussion: too few participants, the wrong/canvassed/biased participants, an unclear question, a non-neutral question, etc.
- I sometimes wish for some statistics on RFCs, e.g., how many (how few) people participate in a typical RFC. Experienced editors often have an inaccurate understanding of Wikipedia. We think that 500 edits is almost nothing, although 99% of editors never make that many. We think that a discussion with "only" 14 editors is too small to determine consensus, but few discussions get even half that many participants. This can lead to misunderstandings about what's normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Most discussions involve a very small number of people, and thus the outcome can vary depending on who participates. I think many editors understand this when they contest decisions, hoping for a different outcome with a (at least in part) different set of participants. For better or worse, English Wikipedia's version of consensus-based decision making relies on extrapolating from a small, self-selected sampling of editors who happen to become aware of a discussion. It's not easy to proceed otherwise when trying to use consensus to make decisions, but combining this with English Wikipedia's "consensus can change" tradition means it's hard to build on past decisions and move forward, because everything is subject to being re-visited at any time. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would say, however, that the referenced discussion saw better participation than a lot of recent XfD discussions. I do think that any admin (and indeed any editor) is free to advertise discussions on more well-attended noticeboards, of done neutrally. BD2412 T 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't expect to be able to find the numbers right now, but if memory serves, a couple of years ago, someone determined that AFDs in the past (10–15 years ago?) typically had three !votes, and now (i.e., a couple of years ago) they typically had four or five !votes. We've had about 300 pages land at WP:DRV, and about 20,000 AFDs in 2023. That's an appeal rate of about 1 in 70, and since most of the decisions are unchanged after DRV, an error rate of less than 1%. We probably only need a few !votes to make the right decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would say, however, that the referenced discussion saw better participation than a lot of recent XfD discussions. I do think that any admin (and indeed any editor) is free to advertise discussions on more well-attended noticeboards, of done neutrally. BD2412 T 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Most discussions involve a very small number of people, and thus the outcome can vary depending on who participates. I think many editors understand this when they contest decisions, hoping for a different outcome with a (at least in part) different set of participants. For better or worse, English Wikipedia's version of consensus-based decision making relies on extrapolating from a small, self-selected sampling of editors who happen to become aware of a discussion. It's not easy to proceed otherwise when trying to use consensus to make decisions, but combining this with English Wikipedia's "consensus can change" tradition means it's hard to build on past decisions and move forward, because everything is subject to being re-visited at any time. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The discussion is now closed Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Democratic Labour Party (Australia) split
The Talk:Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)#Split:_To_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia,_1980) request seems to me to have already passed, several responses have shown their support over multiple months and yet the discussion hasn't closed. The original user who proposed the split has said they wish for the discussion to be closed before they split the article, and have formally requested that the discussion be closed in said discussion. A response from an administrator on the discussion would be appreciated. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @GlowstoneUnknown: If I'm understanding correctly, this may be better suited for Wikipedia:Closure requests. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I'll send this there. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals
Pending in the Wikipedia:Requested moves backlog now are a half dozen separate move requests, mostly multi-moves, encompassing 55 articles on the names of royal figures, all seeking to remove specific regional or national identifiers from the names (e.g., "Charles XII of Sweden → Charles XII"; "Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Pharasmanes III"). These discussions have all drawn heavy participation, and spirited debate. In my experience, any close is going to draw furious objections by those who disagree with the outcome, so I think it behooves us to come up with a plan for closing all of these. My reading of the discussions is that there is an absence of clear consensus for any of the proposed moves, but I am open to differing interpretations. BD2412 T 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BD2412 I haven't read all the discussions, but for the one at Talk:Charles XI of Sweden it seems to me that most opposers of the move are not seriously trying to argue that the move isn't what WP:NCROY supports (or making other arguments specific to that page title), but are rather relitigating the change of NCROY. So, consensus to move IMO Mach61 19:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Similar story at Talk:Edward V of England. Talk:Otto_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor has a stronger numerical majority than those other two discussions, OTOH Mach61 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Or we have evidence that the community no longer supports NCROY. When a discussion appears to depart from a written rule, sometimes that means the written rule should be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing That's sometimes the case, but it's hard to justify not enforcing a well-advertized RfC from less than half a year ago. Yes, consensus can change, even in that timeframe, but it could just as well be the case that a loud minority which lost its day to the broader community is able to temporarily gum-up lower bandwidth processes like RM (IIRC something like this happened with WP:NSPORTS2022 and AfD in the months after it was closed). Anyone is free to open up a second RfC if they so desire. Mach61 01:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- More succinctly: I don't really care about NCRORY/ I do care about making sure our consensus-based processes reflect the will of the community, not the will of the most tenditious members within Mach61 01:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there were 25 editors in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles? (including the closer), and who knows how many more in the individual RMs. Theoretically, we could ping them all to a discussion that basically says "C'mon, guys, you told us a few months ago that shorter is probably better, and now you're saying the opposite. Make up your minds already." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that another RFC is probably necessary, perhaps inevitable. BD2412 T 18:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed a reopening the RFC at WP:NCROY, but was hoping for more feedback on where the RfC should be held to ensure widest participation possible. NCROY is watched by only a small handful of people (royalist afficionados mostly), whereas the article titles affect a much wider community (which is why there is a much "local" resistance to individual RM page moves). The RfC last November on NCROY which changed the wording and created this mess had less participation than the individual individual RMs have had. So I would like to know where the ideal venue for the RfC should be, to ensure adequate participation among the wider community, particularly those who are not particularly interested in royals, but who these pages nonetheless affect (e.g. history articles across the board). Walrasiad (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Walrasiad You can do another RfC at WT:NCROY or WP:VPP. I would suggest you run it through with other people first. Mach61 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I proposed a reopening the RFC at WP:NCROY, but was hoping for more feedback on where the RfC should be held to ensure widest participation possible. NCROY is watched by only a small handful of people (royalist afficionados mostly), whereas the article titles affect a much wider community (which is why there is a much "local" resistance to individual RM page moves). The RfC last November on NCROY which changed the wording and created this mess had less participation than the individual individual RMs have had. So I would like to know where the ideal venue for the RfC should be, to ensure adequate participation among the wider community, particularly those who are not particularly interested in royals, but who these pages nonetheless affect (e.g. history articles across the board). Walrasiad (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that another RFC is probably necessary, perhaps inevitable. BD2412 T 18:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there were 25 editors in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles? (including the closer), and who knows how many more in the individual RMs. Theoretically, we could ping them all to a discussion that basically says "C'mon, guys, you told us a few months ago that shorter is probably better, and now you're saying the opposite. Make up your minds already." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- More succinctly: I don't really care about NCRORY/ I do care about making sure our consensus-based processes reflect the will of the community, not the will of the most tenditious members within Mach61 01:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing That's sometimes the case, but it's hard to justify not enforcing a well-advertized RfC from less than half a year ago. Yes, consensus can change, even in that timeframe, but it could just as well be the case that a loud minority which lost its day to the broader community is able to temporarily gum-up lower bandwidth processes like RM (IIRC something like this happened with WP:NSPORTS2022 and AfD in the months after it was closed). Anyone is free to open up a second RfC if they so desire. Mach61 01:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Or we have evidence that the community no longer supports NCROY. When a discussion appears to depart from a written rule, sometimes that means the written rule should be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Similar story at Talk:Edward V of England. Talk:Otto_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor has a stronger numerical majority than those other two discussions, OTOH Mach61 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)