I welcome comments. Please keep them polite. Thanks
Page moves
Please consider WP:BEFOREMOVING. If you are unsure of what the best name for an article is please discuss it. Moving a page multiple times makes excess redirects and hampers any opposition to the page move by technical restrictions. Please slow down and think before you move a page, all these constant shuffles gives the impression you are unsure, and for longer-standing articles please discuss especially if you are unsure. DankJae 21:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Titus Gold, you have not responded so not sure what you mean by "addressed"? DankJae 22:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- The page was vague in its targeted scope. I changed my mind after reading the Government website on the curriculum. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Titus Gold, hi, thanks for the quick reply, although please do not remove it next time before responding.
- The comment above is kinda referring to multiple page moves you have performed on various articles. So I am actually not sure which page you are referring to at this point, while Education of Welsh History is tolerable, it is not consistent with similar articles. But I opposed Curriculum 2008, since tech-req reverted and started a discussion at its talk. I am not opposed, wholly, to you moving pages, ofc WP:BOLD, but please discuss rather than move multiple times if you have multiple names under consideration.
- Plus kinda confused why you had changed it to a more specific name, but unspecified Local health board? DankJae 23:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. I specified local health board to include the word Wales Titus Gold (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Like not wholly opposed to that move, but still confused that for the curriculum you removed Wales? Just wondering. Tbh, felt prouder Wales warranted the primary topic for LHB, but oh well. DankJae 21:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just because that was the term used on "Hwb" specifically for that curriculum. I have no issues with he current title. Titus Gold (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Still Hwb was only one source, please check multiple sources first and if it's clear there is a (new) common name (used by multiple), then your case for a move is stronger, please do not immediately move an article when you instantly see a different title used, one publication may decide to use a entirely different name for whatever reason, please review multiple sources. If unsure, start a discussion, others, including myself, are happy to discuss. (Starting a RM will additionally notify more people). Plus Hwb, while government-owned, is organised for schools from a guidance/service perspective and is not a secondary source, so I doubt it is the best source for an official name alone, let alone common. Please take care with moving articles, please do it one at a time, with a grace period after each to allow for any potential opposition if there is any. Diolch DankJae 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
If unsure, start a discussion
- can I suggest that this should beIf unsure,start a discussion. On page moves, discussion should be the default. If you are on a new article and you are moving the page already, it suggests you were not sure when starting the article, which is a hint that you may not be sure about the new name. If it is an established article, other editors are invested in the page too and should be consulted. Non controversial page moves needing no discussion are limited to things like fixing capitalisation to match the style guide. Pretty much any other move needs discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)- Will bear in mind, thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Still Hwb was only one source, please check multiple sources first and if it's clear there is a (new) common name (used by multiple), then your case for a move is stronger, please do not immediately move an article when you instantly see a different title used, one publication may decide to use a entirely different name for whatever reason, please review multiple sources. If unsure, start a discussion, others, including myself, are happy to discuss. (Starting a RM will additionally notify more people). Plus Hwb, while government-owned, is organised for schools from a guidance/service perspective and is not a secondary source, so I doubt it is the best source for an official name alone, let alone common. Please take care with moving articles, please do it one at a time, with a grace period after each to allow for any potential opposition if there is any. Diolch DankJae 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just because that was the term used on "Hwb" specifically for that curriculum. I have no issues with he current title. Titus Gold (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Like not wholly opposed to that move, but still confused that for the curriculum you removed Wales? Just wondering. Tbh, felt prouder Wales warranted the primary topic for LHB, but oh well. DankJae 21:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. I specified local health board to include the word Wales Titus Gold (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The page was vague in its targeted scope. I changed my mind after reading the Government website on the curriculum. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality Template
I thought I would bring this one to your talk page, rather than sandwiching it into the discussion of sourcing on the article talk page. You say there:
Yes I'm aware of that point, but also allowed to remove the template if any of the other points apply according to Template:POV.
But this edit summary[1] suggests you are relying on 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
This was not the case. You clearly knew what the issues were, and while you continue to say some of that is vague, you understood and addressed the principle issues. Therefore 2. cannot apply. You addressed concerns and it would have been better to wait for the talk consensus than to unilaterally remove the template for a third time. In any case, (2) is there for when someone drive-by templates a page and no editor at the page can see what the problem is.
If I were making a general point, it would be this: slow down a bit, and build consensus for things. Templates on pages are there to help, drawing in more editors. Discussion is how we build consensus. Even in the discussion, there is an inverse relationship between discussion length and the probability that more editors will contribute. so adding 3 new headings in a single act[2] is going to derail the consensus building. If you wanted to preserve the edits, I would suggest just enclosing the diffs in square brackets in a very short comment. There are No deadlines, and why rush to finish a page if it is going to be taken apart by the next editor who comes along? A good discussion is excellent armour against demolition (as you may have seen at the Kenneth Williams page). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy🏄 Yes, I made changes that you requested that were more specific and then I removed the template because 2 did indeed apply to the other issues that were vague. In this case, it was only us two that were contributing and I followed Template:POV.
- I will heed your words about generally having discussions and establishing consensus. Titus Gold (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you ever feel the need for additional opinions to break a perceived deadlock, you can ask at the appropriate wikiproject. If that doesn't bring in any opinions, bear in mind Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy🏄 I did consider a third opinion but was unsure of the process. I will consider this again in future. Thanks for suggesting it. Titus Gold (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you ever feel the need for additional opinions to break a perceived deadlock, you can ask at the appropriate wikiproject. If that doesn't bring in any opinions, bear in mind Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Romanticism in England and Wales, which you proposed for deletion. Redirects cannot be deleted using the WP:PROD process. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this redirect should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the redirect. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thanks! TartarTorte 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)