User talk:The Bushranger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Book of Knowledge.jpg This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.

No consensus[edit]

Just to clarify, that the category wasn't tagged, I can understand. But how is a previous discussion result of no consensus preclude a follow up nomination? first someone tried sword fighters, next sword practitioners. This is different than repeatedly nominating something for deletion.

As you were the most recent closer, do you have any issues with a follow up nom, with a different suggested rename? - jc37 09:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, unless it's noted by the closing admin that a closure should be followed up for some reason or another, it's best to wait three-six months, even after a No Consensus, before nominating a category again, as it's usually considered unlikely that the (no) consensus will have changed in such a short time. There is no deadline, after all; I'd suggest waiting until around the Fourth of July before nominating again, and perhaps having an informal discussion on the category or project talk page to see if a preliminary suggestion can be come up with for the nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that I know of.
The whole point of WP:NOTAGAIN is when someone repeatedly renominates something for deletion. (The key word there is frivolous.) And the wait is merely to give time to see if consensus has changed concerning deletion. (And incidentally, if the prior discussion resulted in no consensus, then there is no consensus being changed...)
That said, I doubt you'll find any policy saying what you suggest, and for good reason.
If we all followed what you suggest, Wikipedia would grind to a halt, and this without going into the foundation of both WP:CON and WP:IAR. You're suggesting that people need to wait months to continue a discussion. That rather violates WP:CON I think.
I'm a big fan of WP:NODEADLINE (have you read it lately? it's interesting how the page has grown) - but that said, WP:BOLD applies as well.
Never let rules stand in the way of doing what is right...
And also, continuing a discussion in order to continue to hone a rename target is not disruptive. Indeed, it happens all the time on Wikipedia. And this is even more important when dealing with categories as per WP:CAT the name is often the main indication of the criteria for category membership. (The name of the page is Categories for discussion, after all.)
Anyway, I just wanted to see what your concerns were before starting a new discussion. But as you (as closer) do not own the category in question, nor the cfd process itself (which is merely a set of arbitrary deadlines we agreed to - mostly for expediency purposes), you're welcome to join in the discussion whenever I decide to start it (or for that matter, feel free to start one yourself).
Incidentally, if you cannot tell by my comments, I'm rather surprised at your response. When I came here it was concerning category that the world wouldn't end if it goes renamed or not, but per WP:PRECISION (which used to be a stand alone page which was merged to another) I thought I'd see if we could discuss a better name at CfD. But per your choice of comments in your close I thought I'd come here to hear your thoughts first.
But (and perhaps this was not your intention) your comments come across as stifling consensual discussion there, which to me was surprising. (I'm a huge fan of CON.)
If there is some policy you think I'm missing, please let me know.
Anyway, as always, happy editing. - jc37 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not my intention at all, and I apologise if I came across that way. It's just my interpretation of how policies and consensus are interpreted based on my observations, that it was not wise to have so quicly renominated that category again, and it's my feeling based on observations that another renomination now wouldn't produce a superior result. If you feel differently, then of course by all means renominate. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, in re-reading the above, I think I may owe you an apology
I've been reading over WP:CFD, and wasn't happy with what I'm seeing.
There far too much ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT and preferential "voting" going on there and more than a few closes which are mutually reflective of that. (Not this one so much but others I was looking at.)
So when I came here, knowing that the previous result was "no consensus"...
Anyway, so with my mind set on how I'm seeing commenters in discussions aren't commenting supported by policy/guidelines, I responded here in kind.
But now that I look at it, it comes off a bit more, let's say "forceful", than I intended.
I'll chalk that up to my surprise, I guess.
Regardless, I apologise. - jc37 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries! smile - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Crowned Night Heron[edit]

I spotted this bird the other day, visiting Daytona Beach! Gamweb (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Crowned Night Heron
Nice find! Night-Herons are cool. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)