Jump to content

User talk:Combefere: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 8: Line 8:


:{{ping|Ribbet32}} I do not have time to review in depth today, but will take a closer second look tomorrow. <span style="background:#960000;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">[[User:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Combefere</span>]] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">★</span> [[User talk:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Talk</span>]]</span> 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ribbet32}} I do not have time to review in depth today, but will take a closer second look tomorrow. <span style="background:#960000;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">[[User:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Combefere</span>]] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">★</span> [[User talk:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Talk</span>]]</span> 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ribbet32}} Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. The Alberta wildfires article was added very early in discussion (before any votes were even cast), and was well understood to be a part of the discussion by all who participated. Comments like {{tq|"I think it's a much better idea to merge them all together"}} and {{tq|"Support merging the articles listed in nom... [a]s it stands, they're just smaller pieces of one subject.}} include reasons to merge the Alberta article, even if they don't call it out by name. Further, I'm not convinced that the discussion was primarily (or even substantially) over article length; the nom also lists coordination and organization, while other users cite readability. After review, I still see a strong consensus to merge the Alberta article into the main Canadian wildfires article. <span style="background:#960000;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">[[User:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Combefere</span>]] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">★</span> [[User talk:Combefere|<span style="color:#fff">Talk</span>]]</span> 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


== close review ==
== close review ==

Revision as of 16:50, 17 July 2023

2023 Canadian wildfires

Please consider reversing your findings on a consensus to merge 2023 Alberta wildfires into 2023 Canadian wildfires. Some commentators explicitly opposed that merger due to the Alberta article's length and the fires' impact (it more than satisfies GNG too). No one spoke at length about reasons to support merging the Alberta article, because there really aren't any. Most of the supporters talked about how short the subarticles are, which indicates they didn't actually look at the Alberta article, and that may be because it was added to the merge proposal late. There is no consensus to lump the Alberta fires in with the others. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: I do not have time to review in depth today, but will take a closer second look tomorrow. Combefere Talk 22:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ribbet32: Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. The Alberta wildfires article was added very early in discussion (before any votes were even cast), and was well understood to be a part of the discussion by all who participated. Comments like "I think it's a much better idea to merge them all together" and "Support merging the articles listed in nom... [a]s it stands, they're just smaller pieces of one subject. include reasons to merge the Alberta article, even if they don't call it out by name. Further, I'm not convinced that the discussion was primarily (or even substantially) over article length; the nom also lists coordination and organization, while other users cite readability. After review, I still see a strong consensus to merge the Alberta article into the main Canadian wildfires article. Combefere Talk 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

close review

Hi, I did a close review on AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Challenge_close_Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for the notice. Care to sign the comment above? Thanks! Combefere Talk 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think this must have been due to me making this comment in the same time as the AN notification, it created two talk page sections. Sorry about that! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good! :) Combefere Talk 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I kindly request that you assess my draft?

That is of course if you have the time, and the draft that I´m referring is the draft, which I have just added to the International Relations talk page. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]