Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
:I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=714608848&oldid=714602992 modified] [[WP:ANRFC]] to look like this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=706809620 This] is what it will look like. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
:I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=714608848&oldid=714602992 modified] [[WP:ANRFC]] to look like this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=706809620 This] is what it will look like. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:: {{ec}} {{re|Cunard}} That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including ''something'', especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any ''specific'' alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:14, 10 April 2016
Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
TfD Procedure
Hey, you mentioned I should send you a message if I had any questions, so I thought I'd take you up on your offer...
If I close a discussion, and the result is deletion, is there anything I need to do above and beyond putting on the closure template and stating the result? Is there some kind of automated process to take care of the deletion (i.e. add it to a log of stuff to be deleted)? Or will I need to do something else on my end to put the page in the admin deletion backlog? Could you give me an outline of how the process works? --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Gimubrc: Sorry for the delayed response; I've been visiting the University of Minnesota's Department of Economics over the past few days. Thanks for looking into closing these! I recommend reading through WP:TFD/AI, which tells you the steps you should take when you close a discussion at TfD. There are additional steps that need to be taken to delete the template. In particular, all templates that are to be deleted should either be listed at WP:TFD/H in an appropriate category or be nominated for speedy deletion criteria G6. The latter is only appropriate if no transclusions of the template remain. After you've read TFD/AI, let me know if you have any other questions. I'm happy to help! ~ RobTalk 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"In order to"
I didn't want to quote Fowler at too great length, but he gives another reason for using the longer form - the presence of another "to + infinitive" in the sentence. Now I look at it again, that applies. I still feel "in order to" was better, but as I said there, not worth edit-warring about, and the message has clearly been received and understood.
I bristle rather at "archaic", but I am all too aware that the language has changed in my lifetime, I was once on a TESL course where they showed us the phonetic alphabet. I asked, what's the symbol for "WH"? That one, said the instructor. No, that's "W" as in "witch" - where is "WH" as in "which"? It's the same sound, he said. We argued about it, and I went and researched it in the school's library and found that the distinction between W and WH used to be present, but in my lifetime has disappeared from "RP" (southern English educated speech), and is now classed as a regional variation for Scotland and Northern England. Sometimes I feel old. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's very interesting! As a New Yorker, I can confirm that "witch" and "which" are identical in our dialect. I mostly dislike "in order to" due to wasted space. I'm studying to be an economist, so I view "in order to" as being two words closer to being too long for publication in a scholarly journal. Your chances of publication in a good econ journal decrease exponentially as your page count increases. Different worlds, I suppose. I was more offended by the unnecessary comma than the "in order to", but I figured since I was editing, I might as well take the lot. You're welcome to reword it if you prefer it a different way. It was more tounge-in-cheek than anything. ~ RobTalk 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion. I do not see a consensus to remove transclusion of WP:ANRFC from WP:AN.
Here were the two positions:
- Against continued transclusion: Xaosflux, MSGJ, Izno, Kusma, Mendaliv, Only in death does duty end, Bishonen, Kharkiv07, Scott, and Cryptic (10 editors)
- For continued transclusion: Salvidrim!, Samwalton9, Ricky81682, IJBall, Cunard, JzG, Hobit, and Alanscottwalker (8 editors)
In addition, in the middle of the discussion, Xaosflux reduced the table of contents transclusion to three headers. Before, the WP:ANRFC headers took up much space in WP:AN's table of contents. After, the WP:ANRFC headers took up much less space.
And as Izno, an editor who was against continued transclusion, wrote: "I actually think keeping the toc limit to 3 mostly fixes the issues both of transclusion and sometimes lengthy sections further down the page. Not the page-size problem but the rest at least (findability most notably)."
The WP:AN table of contents' getting cluttered by WP:ANRFC's headers was a primary argument for removing transclusion. Now that the TOC issue has been resolved, the rationale for removing WP:AN from WP:ANRFC is significantly weakened.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Thanks for your message. In my review of the thread, I didn't get the sense that the ToC was the major issue here. It appeared the driving force behind the remove votes were the large amount of space on the page that were taken up by the dozens of requests at ANRFC. Izno's comment, for instance, specifically addresses the page-size problem. Most "remove" supporters considered the ToC solution better than the transclusion, but it was frequently discussed as a temporary solution pending the result of the discussion. Around half of the "remove" supporters didn't discuss the ToC issue at all with many specifically addressing the page size resulting from having a noticeboard within a noticeboard.
- Meanwhile, many of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep. For instance, Salvidrim wanted it collapsed, and other editors expressed at least some support for that idea. Multiple editors discussed pruning ANRFC so the page size is small enough to remain transcluded. Both of these rationales accept the page-size problem as a legitimate issue. Collapsing didn't receive enough support to be considered as a solution, and closing enough discussions that ANRFC's transclusion is smaller is a nice theoretical idea, but it's not feasible to implement in the short-term. Given the weight they placed on page-size issues, I determined there was consensus that there was clear consensus against the status quo.
- As for a way forward, I'm guessing you'll find wide support for some type of widget/template to be placed at the top of AN to display the state of ANRFC with links to contribute. I suggested such a thing in the closure because it combines many aspects of the alternatives suggested (collapsing, less page-size, etc). No one solution achieved enough support in the previous discussion to be immediately implemented, but I'd recommend continuing the discussion and gaining support for such a widget or other smaller notification about the state of ANRFC. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, many of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep. – other than Salvidrim, the only shortening of the page "keep" editors supported was removing the long list of CfDs listed on the page. This was done, so their concerns have been resolved. Other than Salvidrim, none of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion.
Where in the discussion do you see "many of the 'keep' supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep"? I see only Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) who I am doubtful would support removing transclusion after his fake headers suggestion was implemented through an equivalent action that reduced the table of contents size. Pinging Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) to clarify.
There were seven "keep transclusion" (none of whom expressed support for smaller versions of the transclusion except for removing the individual CfD listings which was done), one "keep transclusion" from Salvidrim! whose proposal was implemented through an equivalent action, and 10 "remove transclusion". This is not a consensus to remove transclusion.
Cunard (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My suggestion was a compromise with the explicit endgoal of KEEPING THE TRANSCLUSION in some form (be it fakeheaders, collapsed or otherwise condensed such as by replacing individual CFD listings with a single link to the backlog). If the time spent on complaining about the size was instead spent clearing items off of the backlog, everybody would no doubt be much happier about the state of things. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. You also didn't count wbm1058, who questioned your actions in spamming ANRFC. His contribution to the discussion indicated he was concerned with the page-size issue, and I weighed him on the "remove" side somewhat. That brings the count to 12-8, but the count is not how consensus is assessed. The arguments of the "remove" side were stronger, simply put. The major argument of the "keep" !voters (this is the only way closes are happening) was successfully refuted by the "remove" !voters, who claimed people are unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it. There was also no real counter-argument to the "remove" rationale that the page-size is unreasonably increased by the transclusion, which makes it harder for actual AN issues to be handled. IJBall specifically stated ANRFC has a problem of over-spammers, and his comment did not specifically note CfD. He appeared to be pointing at the over-spamming of RfCs, etc. at ANRFC, similar to wbm1058. The "compromise" option that seemed likely to have consensus was the use of some alternative, which I noted in the close. I'd recommend opening a discussion directed at which alternative is appropriate, which I hoped would happen after my close. It was clear that editors were not going to discuss specific alternative options when the remove transclusion vs. keep transclusion issue was not yet settled. Alternatively, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is always an option if you believe my closure was improper. ~ RobTalk 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. – Opabinia regalis wrote: "I'm indifferent between "remove entirely" and "remove specific listings and just use it as a general backlog log". I interpret this as referring to the CfD list on the page. She was indifferent between removing the CfD listings entirely or removing specific CfD listings and just using it as a general backlog log. She did not say anything about the transclusion. It is an error to assume she did. Pinging Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) to clarify.
You also didn't count wbm1058, who questioned your actions in spamming ANRFC. His contribution to the discussion indicated he was concerned with the page-size issue, and I weighed him on the "remove" side somewhat. – wbm1058 said: "Cunard has some two-dozen items currently listed on WP:ANRFC. I'm wondering why so many. I just looked at one, which was stale, and didn't seem particularly urgent. When you spam a list with too much "important" stuff, the effect is to make none of it important. Unimportant to-do items get put on back burners." This is not a comment on whether to keep or remove the transclusion. It is an error to assume he did. That an editor thinks I put too many items in WP:ANRFC is a completely separate issue from transclusion. Pinging wbm1058 (talk · contribs) to clarify.
The major argument of the "keep" !voters (this is the only way closes are happening) was successfully refuted by the "remove" !voters, who claimed people are unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it. – the "keep" editors were not "successfully refuted". JzG said, "As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then." Alanscottwalker said, "It's what gets me to close, any, ever." Some editors will read the list. Some editors will not read the list. In a subjective situation like this, to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other is an error.
There was also no real counter-argument to the "remove" rationale that the page-size is unreasonably increased by the transclusion, which makes it harder for actual AN issues to be handled. – "remove" editors did not explain why a transcluded WP:ANRFC with shortened headers makes it harder for other WP:AN issues to be addressed. And regarding "actual AN issues", WP:ANRFC issues are actual WP:AN issues. As noted here, close requests were listed at WP:AN before being moved to WP:ANRFC, which had a more permissive archiving system and kept close requests together. In a subjective situation like this, to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other is an error.
IJBall specifically stated ANRFC has a problem of over-spammers, and his comment did not specifically note CfD. He appeared to be pointing at the over-spamming of RfCs, etc. at ANRFC, similar to wbm1058. – IJBall wrote: "To be clear, I do not think ANRFC should be removed from WP:AN." It is clear that he and I disagree with the listings I place on WP:ANRFC. It is an error to use IJBall and my disagreement as supportive of removing WP:ANRFC from WP:AN when IJBall unambiguously says he wants it to remain. Pinging IJBall (talk · contribs) to clarify.
The "compromise" option that seemed likely to have consensus was the use of some alternative, which I noted in the close. – the compromise opinion was reducing the table of contents size. Other than Salvidrim!, there was no support among the "keep" side for anything else.
Here is a summary of the errors in this close:- Salvidrim!'s comments were incorrectly used to support removing transclusion. He supports an end goal of continued transclusion.
- Opabinia regalis did not express an opinion in the RfC about transclusion. She discussed backlogs listings in general and CfD backlog listings in particular.
- wbm1058 did not express an opinion in the RfC about transclusion.
- Whether editors are likely or "unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it" is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
- Whether a transcluded WP:ANRFC makes "actual" WP:AN issues harder to address is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
- Whether WP:ANRFC issues are "actual" WP:AN issues is a subjective opinion. As a neutral closer, it is incorrect to choose the side you personally feel is stronger than the other.
- IJBall's preference to have fewer listing on WP:ANRFC should not be interpreted as lending any support to the removal of WP:ANRFC from WP:AN when he clearly states otherwise.
That brings the count to 12-8, but the count is not how consensus is assessed. – the count is incorrect because two editors expressed no opinion about transclusion. And the count is how consensus is assessed on subjective matters where there is no overriding policy.The first main error in the close is assuming one side is stronger on subjective issues where reasonable editors can disagree. The second main error is incorrectly interpreting the opinions of four editors as "being on the 'remove' side somewhat".
Based on these errors, I ask you to revise your close to "no consensus" or reverse your close.
- First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. – Opabinia regalis wrote: "I'm indifferent between "remove entirely" and "remove specific listings and just use it as a general backlog log". I interpret this as referring to the CfD list on the page. She was indifferent between removing the CfD listings entirely or removing specific CfD listings and just using it as a general backlog log. She did not say anything about the transclusion. It is an error to assume she did. Pinging Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) to clarify.
- First, you missed Opabinia regalis on the remove side in the list above. You also didn't count wbm1058, who questioned your actions in spamming ANRFC. His contribution to the discussion indicated he was concerned with the page-size issue, and I weighed him on the "remove" side somewhat. That brings the count to 12-8, but the count is not how consensus is assessed. The arguments of the "remove" side were stronger, simply put. The major argument of the "keep" !voters (this is the only way closes are happening) was successfully refuted by the "remove" !voters, who claimed people are unlikely to stop and read the list rather than just scroll right past it. There was also no real counter-argument to the "remove" rationale that the page-size is unreasonably increased by the transclusion, which makes it harder for actual AN issues to be handled. IJBall specifically stated ANRFC has a problem of over-spammers, and his comment did not specifically note CfD. He appeared to be pointing at the over-spamming of RfCs, etc. at ANRFC, similar to wbm1058. The "compromise" option that seemed likely to have consensus was the use of some alternative, which I noted in the close. I'd recommend opening a discussion directed at which alternative is appropriate, which I hoped would happen after my close. It was clear that editors were not going to discuss specific alternative options when the remove transclusion vs. keep transclusion issue was not yet settled. Alternatively, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is always an option if you believe my closure was improper. ~ RobTalk 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My suggestion was a compromise with the explicit endgoal of KEEPING THE TRANSCLUSION in some form (be it fakeheaders, collapsed or otherwise condensed such as by replacing individual CFD listings with a single link to the backlog). If the time spent on complaining about the size was instead spent clearing items off of the backlog, everybody would no doubt be much happier about the state of things. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, many of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion rather than an outright keep. – other than Salvidrim, the only shortening of the page "keep" editors supported was removing the long list of CfDs listed on the page. This was done, so their concerns have been resolved. Other than Salvidrim, none of the "keep" supporters favored smaller versions of the transclusion.
Going down the "list of errors":
- Salvidrim wasn't weighed as a support against transclusion. He was weighed as an editor concerned with the page-size. Page-size is distinct from TOC-size, by the way. They're two different issues.
- Opabinia regalis' comment is fairly clear to me that she favors either removal of any reference to ANRFC entirely or the removal of the transclusion and replacement with a notice about the general state of the backlog. She specifically states the second option she was indifferent toward as including "remove specific listings". The transclusion is nothing but specific listings. If Opabinia regalis let me know that I incorrectly interpreted her stance, I would reconsider my close.
- wbm also addressed the page-size issue. He wasn't weighed as a "remove transclusion". He was weighed as a "page size can be an issue", which weighs more heavily toward the remove side than the keep side. When assessing consensus, this is why you can't use a count. Wbm clearly is not weighed as much as someone who steadfastly believes the transclusion should be removed, but he generally seemed concerned with page size (the remove rationale) and said nothing about the issue of people not closing discussions in the absence of the transclusion (the keep rationale). As a result, it's natural to weigh him as a small push toward removal because it speaks toward how convincing the arguments for removal and keeping are.
- Please see point 3. I'm not assessing based on my subjective opinion on strength of argument. I'm assessing based on how convincing the keep rationales were to other editors.
- Again, see point 3. This is a misunderstanding of my close if you've gotten the impression that I merely assessed how I personally feel about the strength of argument. I did not take that into consideration when closing (and I have no intention of providing my opinion on that).
- I made no claim about this in my close. It's clear from the discussion that the page-size argument exists because editors felt that the transclusion was crowding out other discussion. I wasn't subjectively assessing my opinion on that; I was assessing how convincing that argument was to other editors in the discussion.
- Similar to wbm, IJBall expressed concern over the page size. He was important in considering how convincing the arguments were, since he was somewhat convinced by the "remove" side that page size was an issue. I didn't weigh him toward the remove side, but I also didn't count him as a full keep vote. Again, this highlights the problem in just using counts. They aren't an appropriate way to assess consensus as per WP:CON and WP:CLOSE.
I would reconsider my close if I misinterpreted Opabinia regalis. The other issues here are misunderstandings of how I assessed consensus or claims that I should be abiding by "1 person, 1 vote", which is not in line with policy. As mentioned above, you're certainly welcome to ask for a review of the closure at WP:AN if you believe I haven't properly assessed the consensus. I don't believe I've made an error here, but I also recognize that I'm hardly infallible. ~ RobTalk 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I misread this in my mentions and thought I was being summoned to a dramaboard. Whew! ;)
- To be honest I had mostly forgotten about this discussion, so I hope I'm not the deciding factor - but my comments earlier in that thread about the MEGO effect describe my main concern. The "general backlog log" I had in mind is close to what Rob suggested in the closing statement of creating a new template with a summary of the state of the backlog, perhaps highlighting the most urgent cases. The problem with the transclusion as it stands/stood is that you get used to it as just a big clot of stuff you scroll past without reading if you want to look at something on AN. A more compact presentation is probably a net gain in visibility, since a) people don't condition themselves to ignore it, and b) you can make a reasonable argument to put it in other visible places. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Come on, my talk page isn't that bad! Cunard Opabinia's response is in-line with how I considered their position when assessing consensus, so I don't see a reason to reconsider the close on that basis. The only part that I didn't consider in assessing consensus is the additional bit about potential increased visibility on other pages, since that wasn't clearly stated in the discussion. I'm curious how it would have been received, but it would have helped the removal if anything, so no reason to reopen so the new argument can be made. ~ RobTalk 18:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Although I still disagree with the position that there was consensus in the discussion to remove transclusion, I like Opabinia regalis's and BU Rob13's suggestion. The primary reason for transcluding WP:ANRFC on WP:AN is the increased visibility, a point that was made by JzG, Hobit, Alanscottwalker, and me, so I am surprised that you did not consider that part.
Here is a compromise suggestion that I consider superior to removing transclusion or keeping the entire WP:ANRFC transclusion. Instead of transcluding the entire WP:ANRFC onto WP:AN, we just transclude the "Requests for closure" header and the "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves" subheaders. Within those headers, we include links to their sections within WP:ANRFC.
This way, WP:ANRFC will continue to have high visibility on WP:AN, but it won't take up that much space:
Requests for closure
Requests for comment
Click here to see all the requests for comment.
Backlogs
Click here to see all the backlogs.
XfD
Click here to see all the XfDs.
Administrative
Click here to see all the administrative requests.
Requested moves
Click here to see all the requested moves.
What do you think about this approach? Cunard (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've modified WP:ANRFC to look like this. This is what it will look like. Cunard (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Cunard: That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any specific alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed. ~ RobTalk 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)