User talk:MelanieN/Archive 98
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
- An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Technical news
- The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
- Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
- The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
- Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
- Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
This should not be closed as a keep. All the keep votes are WP:ILIKEIT not based in policy or community standards. At best you have a merge close, or a delete. Please update the closure accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Headbomb. I am baffled by your apparent objection to this close, because in your comment at the discussion, you argued for merge but said "I'd be fine with a Keep." You also said "Deleting is a no." -- MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I was also surprised by the keep close. As Headbomb says, several keep !votes basically were ILIKEIT !votes and numerically there was not much difference either (if I'm not mistaken, 8 keep to 7 delete/merge). I expected a merge close and could live with a "no consensus", but find "keep" not reflecting the discussion. Perhaps you could have another look? Cheers, Randykitty (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Randykitty. In my evaluation the nine "Keep" !votes were not simply "I like it" !votes; most were reasoned and most of them came from long-experienced editors. The five "Merge" !votes were also reasonable, though rather brief. (Oh, and one of the "keep" !voters said they could also support merge, but without withdrawing their "keep" !vote.) There were only two "Delete" !votes so delete was not an option - as Headbomb pointed out in his “merge” comment. I had no hesitation in closing this as a "keep" and would do so again. But if you think I was mistaken, feel free to take it to DRV. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: I was surprised by your merge !vote because you normally follow NJOURNALS, and you said this "might squeeze by", but then you !voted merge anyway. Usually "might squeeze by" equates to a "weak keep". StAnselm (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- The operative word here being "might"... Being indexed only in ATLA is mighty thin and debatable, whereas few people could have something against a merge. In the past we indeed have kept sometimes a journal that was only indexed in ATLA (I think, can't think of an example out of hand). I'm not sure any more if that's perhaps too lenient. Any religion journal seems to be in ATLA, so I'm starting to wonder whether it really is as selective as NJOURNALS requires. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN, I am writing to follow up on your close of this AfD. When I redirected as suggested in the close and in accordance with what I think are the policy-based !votes in the AfD, I noticed the WP:BLAR guideline refers to the AfD process as a method of resolving disputes related to redirects. While not technically a delete, my !vote for a redirect was to remove this article from mainspace, because the significant reliance on primary sources in the article makes it appear that it should be excluded per WP:NOT. This is not a !vote to keep, but an attempt to protect the encyclopedia from WP:PROMO, while recognizing that an article for the subject may become better-supported in the future. I am hoping the AfD close can be updated to reflect the redirect result, based on the state of the article at the time of the closure and WP:NOT policy. Otherwise, if you could further explain the policy basis for your close, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Beccaynr. I did see that you immediately redirected the page, as I had suggested was possible in my close. In effect what you did was exactly WP:BLAR, i.e., blank and redirect. You are wondering why I didn’t close the AfD as Redirect, after two other people agreed with your Redirect proposal. Instead I made “Keep” the formal close, with a note explaining that I meant either Keep or Redirect. Here’s why: I have seen people interpret a straight Redirect close as forbidding future expansion to a full article. That was not your intent; you specifically allowed for the possibility of a BLP article if she becomes more notable in the future. I also wanted to make clear that there was no sentiment for Delete; all of the !votes were either Keep or Redirect. So the current situation of the page is: redirected, with the possibility of expansion - as you made clear with the template you added. I think that was pretty much exactly what the AfD concluded. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your reply - however, I think the concern about misinterpretation of a Redirect closure had been addressed by the content of the discussion, with three !voters indicating the article could be brought back to mainspace if support for notability develops, as well as the 'redirect with possibilities' template I added, and this could be further reinforced by a closing note that highlights this consensus. I appreciate your clarification about your reasoning, but would still appreciate it if the close could be updated, because it seems we pretty much agree that the AfD concluded with a Redirect. My concern is based on how a keep close could be interpreted as indicating there is WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS per our P&Gs to support notability for the article at the time of the close, even though it appears excludable per the second prong of WP:N due to its substantial reliance on primary sources and related appearance of WP:PROMO. As I continue to work at AfD, I have developed more of a focus on trying to help protect the encyclopedia from promotion and spam, so my follow up on this is related to my general effort. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, not everyone agreed with Redirect. In addition to the three Redirect !votes, there were two Keep !votes, plus the "nomination withdrawn" comment. All commenters are long-established editors, with the two Keep !voters citing their interpretation of notability policy, which differed from yours. My conclusion was that it was pretty much "no consensus" between Keep and Redirect, and my main goal was to indicate that either of those outcomes would be acceptable, but Delete was not. I'm not sure what you are asking me to do; you think I should change the primary close from "keep" to "redirect"? I have explained why I was reluctant to do that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- From my view, the keep !votes were not grounded in policy, particularly as the discussion developed, e.g. to clarify a statement made by a keep !voter about "books" and the creation of a separate article for the one book written so far by the article subject. I was suggesting an incorporation of a clarification into a redirect closing statement to address your concern instead of closing the discussion as keep, but if your conclusion is pretty much "no consensus", then perhaps that could be more clearly reflected in the close, i.e. a "no consensus" close instead of a "keep"? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- That would be misconstrued. "No consensus" is generally understood to mean no consensus whether to keep or delete, and I wanted to make it clear that "delete" was not one of the options considered. I am happy with my "keep" close with its explanation that redirecting was also acceptable. You believe that the "keep" votes were "not grounded in policy" so you want them discounted; however, the "keep" voters also cited policy, explaining that they interpret the policy differently from you. The current situation of the page, "redirect with possibilities", seems to me to be the ideal outcome and reflects the discussion accurately. At this point there has been no attempt to restore the original article, so I really don't see what the problem is. If you wish, you are welcome to take this to deletion review. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I would have probably closed this as "The result was no consensus. Views are split between keep and redirect; neither involves any administrative action and so can be done by any editor after this AfD". In my view, a "keep" close implies that "keep" had the strongest argument, and there could be no other reasonable interpretation of consensus. Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Ritchie. Each of the possible closes - "Keep", "Redirect", and "No consensus" - has problems. "Keep" and "Redirect" can be construed as forbidding the other option, while "No consensus" worries me as to me it implies the choices are "Keep" or "Delete". You would attach an explanatory note saying either keep or redirect, and that's what I did too. I'll be curious to hear input from other admins. Maybe we can do a little informal DRV right here! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this was an instance where a more detailed close rationale was appropriate, as you did. In particular, when I close difficult or contentious AfDs, I do add a summary of why I reached the conclusion I did, because inevitably if you don't, you'll get yanked off to DRV and have to do it anyway. ;-) Beccaynr, I guess you're concerned that your redirect was out of process or against consensus? In this case, I get the general feeling that nobody is objecting to your redirect, and I wouldn't worry about the semantics of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Ritchie. Each of the possible closes - "Keep", "Redirect", and "No consensus" - has problems. "Keep" and "Redirect" can be construed as forbidding the other option, while "No consensus" worries me as to me it implies the choices are "Keep" or "Delete". You would attach an explanatory note saying either keep or redirect, and that's what I did too. I'll be curious to hear input from other admins. Maybe we can do a little informal DRV right here! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I would have probably closed this as "The result was no consensus. Views are split between keep and redirect; neither involves any administrative action and so can be done by any editor after this AfD". In my view, a "keep" close implies that "keep" had the strongest argument, and there could be no other reasonable interpretation of consensus. Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- That would be misconstrued. "No consensus" is generally understood to mean no consensus whether to keep or delete, and I wanted to make it clear that "delete" was not one of the options considered. I am happy with my "keep" close with its explanation that redirecting was also acceptable. You believe that the "keep" votes were "not grounded in policy" so you want them discounted; however, the "keep" voters also cited policy, explaining that they interpret the policy differently from you. The current situation of the page, "redirect with possibilities", seems to me to be the ideal outcome and reflects the discussion accurately. At this point there has been no attempt to restore the original article, so I really don't see what the problem is. If you wish, you are welcome to take this to deletion review. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- From my view, the keep !votes were not grounded in policy, particularly as the discussion developed, e.g. to clarify a statement made by a keep !voter about "books" and the creation of a separate article for the one book written so far by the article subject. I was suggesting an incorporation of a clarification into a redirect closing statement to address your concern instead of closing the discussion as keep, but if your conclusion is pretty much "no consensus", then perhaps that could be more clearly reflected in the close, i.e. a "no consensus" close instead of a "keep"? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, not everyone agreed with Redirect. In addition to the three Redirect !votes, there were two Keep !votes, plus the "nomination withdrawn" comment. All commenters are long-established editors, with the two Keep !voters citing their interpretation of notability policy, which differed from yours. My conclusion was that it was pretty much "no consensus" between Keep and Redirect, and my main goal was to indicate that either of those outcomes would be acceptable, but Delete was not. I'm not sure what you are asking me to do; you think I should change the primary close from "keep" to "redirect"? I have explained why I was reluctant to do that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your reply - however, I think the concern about misinterpretation of a Redirect closure had been addressed by the content of the discussion, with three !voters indicating the article could be brought back to mainspace if support for notability develops, as well as the 'redirect with possibilities' template I added, and this could be further reinforced by a closing note that highlights this consensus. I appreciate your clarification about your reasoning, but would still appreciate it if the close could be updated, because it seems we pretty much agree that the AfD concluded with a Redirect. My concern is based on how a keep close could be interpreted as indicating there is WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS per our P&Gs to support notability for the article at the time of the close, even though it appears excludable per the second prong of WP:N due to its substantial reliance on primary sources and related appearance of WP:PROMO. As I continue to work at AfD, I have developed more of a focus on trying to help protect the encyclopedia from promotion and spam, so my follow up on this is related to my general effort. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Ritchie and would like to add that the same goes for the preceding section. I don't think that anybody would see a "redirect" or "merge" close as something eternal: of course if new sources become available, a stand-alone article can be created regardless the AFD close. On the other hand, a "keep" close will be interpreted by many editors as precluding a merge or redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie333, I am not particularly concerned about the redirect being contested, because I could take the article back to AfD. Maybe relisting this AfD could allow more time for the new information developed during the discussion to be considered and for a clearer consensus to be developed. Beccaynr (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN § Article about the writer and journalist Jonathan Power. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MelanieN. Maybe you can help this user out? If they do re-ask their question at the Help Desk, there's a good chance they will be pointed in your direction anyway since you're the admin who salted the Jonathan Power; so, instead of others offering some general advice on what needs to be done for an article to be created about Powers, I thought you could skip that in between step and just let this user know what you expect them to do in order for the article to be re-created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Marchjuly, and thanks for the note. I really wouldn't have anything helpful to say about this case. I salted the article 7 years ago, as repeatedly deleted and recreated. But there is no telling what might have happened in the intervening 7 years to change the situation. What I will do is remove the salt since it may be obsolete, let them make their draft, and let it go through the usual review process. I will say so at the AN discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Royce Williams
On 22 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royce Williams, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after U.S. Navy pilot Royce Williams engaged in a solo dogfight with seven Soviet MiG-15s during the Korean War, he was ordered never to tell anyone about it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royce Williams. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Royce Williams), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow! I was out of town when this one ran on the front page, and didn't find out until weeks later that it had been live for for parts of two days, getting 35,794 views on the first day and 72,836 on the second - a total of 108,630 page views, overwhelmingly my most viewed DYK ever. Wow. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |