User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160711

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you explain your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Mrs Denis Thatcher as retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages? When I retargeted it to Margaret Thatcher#Early_political_career, Siuenti explicilty supported the new target and AngusWOOF implicitly supported it. Only the nominator, the IP (whose problem with lack of context at the current target was addressed by my edits), and Gorthian supported retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages. With a 3-3 split, it seems like it should've been a no-consensus or relist unless the closer believes that there were much stronger arguments from policy/guideline on any particular side. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knightI'll re-read and get back to you later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patar knight I read the discussion again. As far as a target for Margaret, your the only one who clearly unambiguously supported it. Siuenti voted for Denis and left a comment suggesting (but not endorsing) Margaret without striking the original vote, and AngusWOOF voted for delete and later asked how about the nuts and bolts of a Margaret target without endorsing it. On the other hand, Neve-selbert, 210.6.254.106 and Gorthian were explicit and clear about supporting Denis. So, given a choice between one clear vote for Margaret, three clear votes for Denis, and two unclear ones, the choice is clear. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to re-read. Siuenti actually !voted for both Denis and PM Thatcher, agreed with my take on primary topic, and then upon my addition of context to Thatcher's article said that "Since [the term "Mrs. Denis Thatcher"]'s now discussed specifically I support your proposed target", which seems like a clear indication of his preference. AngusWOOF agreed that the PM was the primary topic, did not oppose the new target, and at no point indicated support for retargeting to Denis. So just counting !votes, the split for retargeting to Denis is 3/3.
However Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the discussion surrounding the relevant guidelines should be taken into account. Siuenti, AngusWOOF, and I all explicitly backed the view that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was the PM, while the nominator did not, with arguments that were frankly, ahistorical strawmen. The IP also implicitly backed the PM as the primary topic by citing WP:COMMONNAME, and their main concern was that one of the purposes of redirects was for subtopics of existing articles while there was then no context at PM Thatcher's article. Gorthian's retarget !vote was based on the reasoning of Siuenti and the IP, which I would interpret as seeing PM Thatcher as the primary topic but supporting retargeting to Denis because of the context issue, since Siuenti did not elaborate on retargeting but did express belief that PM Thatcher was the primary topic. Since my edits to PM Thatcher's page did add context, the guideline forming the basis of the IP and Gorthian's !votes would also be called into question, since he !voted per the other two. With all this uncertainty around all the votes except for me and the nominator, I think it would have been preferable to relist and ping/contact users or close as no-consensus rather than close as you did.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are possibly wrong about Siuenti (who was incredibly unclear and confusing on their views) and definitely wrong about Anguswoof. I looked again, actually using my find function on my browser to look for the word Woof, and their initial delete vote is their only explicit view presented. Woof never said that you should target to Margaret. Quote where they say so and prove me wrong. Thus, 3-2, or maybe 3-1, with either one or two views that count as "other".
  • As far as primary topic, this is a very atypical situation, and primary topic policy isn't all that helpful. This is what the retarget to Denis voters were getting at. The sillyness of the hatnote demonstrates perfectly - Mrs Denis Thatcher redirects to someone else for other Mrs Denis Thatchers see Denis Thatcher - while redirecting to Denis Thatcher doesn't require a hatnote at all (and if it has one, I'll delete it now).
  • Anyway, blah blah blah, you haven't yet made the case to me that the consensus matches what you think. And you are still the only person who explicitly requested a target to Margaret. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Siuenti's reply of "I support your proposed target" can technically be unclear, when it's in response to "Would you prefer to retarget ot [sic] keep the redirect?", the intent is clear. AngusWOOF saying "I'll agree that she is primary topic" is explicitly backing me on PM Thatcher being the primary topic. AngusWOOF never supported retargeting to Denis despite having the opportunity to do so or to oppose my new target at the PM Thatcher page after he returned to the RfD after being pinged. It can be implied that he was okay with my target (especially after I implemented the hatnote that he mentioned in his reply) though deletion was still his preference. This is an even split between those who opposed retargeting to Denis and those who supported it, and even if you discount AngusWOOF, a 2-3 split should go to the strength of the arguments from policy and guidelines.
  • The two guidelines in play here were the disambiguation guideline (which includes PRIMARYTOPIC) and the redirect guideline. Only the nominator disagreed with me on the primary topic issue, and the !vote of the IP (and backed by Gorthian) invokes COMMONNAME, which implies that he agrees that the PM is the primary topic, but his other concerns about the purpose of redirects overides that. So the consensus on which article is the primary topic is either 3-1 or 5-1 in favour of PM Thatcher. The IP's argument that redirects should quickly point readers to relevant encylopedic content was addressed by my changes to add the relevant encyclopedic context to PM Thatcher's page and change the target to that specific section. Your assertion here that the hatnote was silly leads me to actually consider taking this to DRV, since if you think that "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" redirecting to PM Thatcher is redirecting to "someone else", I don't think you've grasped the naming convention issue at the heart of the RfD. Hatnotes of this type are common (see: A Modest Proposal, Aphrodite, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) and explicitly recommended by our DAB guideline for sitiuations where there is a clear primary topic. In this case, the hatnote was not at the top and in a section, which WP:HATNOTE says is allowed.
  • I never said that the consensus was to keep, my point was that because 1) the issues behind 2/3 of the pro-Denis !votes were addressed 2) the primary topic was recogznied as the PM by half and likely all but one of the !voters and 3) the ambiguity that you yourself assigned to some of the votes, the RfD would have benefited from relisting. Then you could ping the users involved to encourage them to clarify their views given the changed target and new information before making a more informed close when everyone's position was clear. Instead you have a close where you have to defend it by arguing ignorance of people's actual prefered positions.--- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this. If I don't hear back by tonight, I'll send this to DRV to try and get a relist. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Please link to this discussion if you do so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Mrs Denis Thatcher[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mrs Denis Thatcher. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]