User talk:Randykitty

I am greatly reducing the time that I am spending on WP and may not be immediately available. If you need an admin, please go to WP:AN. If you came here because I deleted an article, please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

openaccess = no

Hi, you reverted a change of mine adding "openaccess = no", saying that one should not indicate the value "no" for this parameter. I was wondering if you could point me to the policy justifying this? Indeed, I don't understand why it would only make sense to indicate "openaccess = yes" (and thus have ambiguity between non-OA journals and journals whose OA status has not been indicated on Wikipedia). Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see the documentation and explanation with the infobox journal template. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have searched the documentation (which says nothing as far as I can tell) and the talk archives where the only relevant thing is this discussion which seems to hint that explicitly indicating non-OA journals would make sense (search for "black" there). So as far as I can tell there is no reason not to indicate "openaccess = no". For this reason I'll undo your revert -- if I missed anything please consider pointing me to the exact place where this is explained, and/or start a discussion on the template if you'd like to gather consensus towards forbidding "openaccess = no" for some reason. Regards --a3nm (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template doc says "|openaccess = Availability of open-access content, with wikilinks if appropriate (put Yes if journal is completely open-access, or Delayed or Hybrid if more appropriate)". This clearly indicates that we indicate here whether something is OA, a possible "no" answer is not indicated. This is now probably the only journal article that has this parameter set to "No"... Soon this will be moot anyway, because OA is gaining ground continuously and many (or even most) journals are nowadays at least Hybrid. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, to clarify, do you mean that the implied default of this parameter is "NOT ( Yes OR Delayed OR Hybrid )"? If so, how do you suggest to express this? One option is to automatically show "No open-access content" or something like that when the parameter is not specified.

By the way, a more robust information to show is probably the license of the journal itself, which is less open to interpretation. It could easily be fetched from Wikidata for the open-access journals, and all the others would be proprietary. Nemo 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow answer... Nowadays, most subscription-based journals have OA options, so most journals are at least hybrid OA, many also delayed OA. This means that if we'd make "no" the default, this would be incorrect in most cases. This also goes for Advances in Mathematics (see above), which also has OA options (see https://www.elsevier.com/journals/advances-in-mathematics/0001-8708/open-access-options). In my experience, "no" is only correct for some minor journals (and those mostly in the humanities, where there are still journals around that are not even available online (e.g., Theological Review). As for the license, that is not always clear either. Especially hybrid journals may operate under different licenses and it is sometimes a pain to find out what is correct. For the moment, we only display "license" for fully OA journals that operate under a CC license. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nemo bis and A3nm. No response needed, just making sure you saw this as this was archived before I responded. --Randykitty (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty. I agree that in many cases the status will be delayed and/or hybrid. I don't think there should be a default value, but I think manually indicating "no" (or "delayed" or "hybrid" or "delayed/hybrid", or "yes" for bona-fide OA titles) can still be interesting to readers. (I often use Wikipedia to check whether a journal is OA and I'm sure other people do, so indicating "delayed/hybrid" is more helpful than not indicating anything.) Would you agree? Best --a3nm (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many people go too fast (as, frankly, was the case here too) and fill in "no" if a journal is not completely OA. As I said above, "no" is exceedingly rare and will get rarer soon. Instead of a likely incorrect "no" I prefer nothing, so people will look at a journal's website and discover for themselves whether it's hybrid, delayed, or perhaps indeed not OA at all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree I should have filled in "Hybrid" rather than "No", thanks for investigating and fixing it. I have gone over previous edits of mine to fix other such mistakes. I'll indicate "Hybrid" rather than "no" henceforth, unless there's really no OA publishing option, which I agree is becoming quite rare. That said, I do think it's better to have this information on journal infoboxes, rather than leaving readers to figure this out for themselves. Best, --a3nm (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Executioner

Since you killed this article, Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America), how about redirecting the space to Boy Scouts of America? 173.79.61.73 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a likely search term, so I don't really see what use this would be. Commissioner Service is more likely and is already a redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please restore the content and redirect it to Boy_Scouts_of_America#Organization. --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also please restore these:

and point them to the same place? --evrik ^(talk) 20:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply create these redirects yourself, except the third one that is a very unlikely search term. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America)

IMO based both on strength of arguments given and also by simple count the discussion was about 1/3 "delete" 1/3 "merge" and 1/3 "keep. Arguable, but certainly no consensus to delete. You closed as "delete" and deleted all of the material and references. Also, my understanding is that the closing is to be based on the discussion, but instead the basis you gave was your own interpretation of what should happen with respect to the guidelines. IMO it should clearly have been closed as "no consensus" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spend quite a while evaluating the different !votes. WP:NOTAVOTE. I stand with my closure. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with @North8000:. The stated reason for the nomination was the lack of secondary sources. That issue was resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 20:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence Party

Just contacting you as closing admin for the last deletion discussion on this. It has been renominated for deletion by the same user, is this normal and ok? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not normal and not OK. I have closed this latest AfD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, all the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AfD Qazi Shibli

Hi, You’re the closing administrator for Qazi Shibli AfD, and before i put it up for deletion review i wanted to consult you.
First, Since the article is a BLP it should be clearly supported by multiple secondary sources. I’ve done a proper WP:BEFORE and didn’t find enough SIGCOV sources.
Second, Multiple sources in the article are from his own media organisation i-e The Kashmiriyat.
Third, TIME being an RS there isn’t SIGCOV, it has no real byline.
Fourth, I’ve made no personal attacks, i raised it to AfD because it didn’t meet WP:GNG or any other policy.

I’d be really happy if you can share the Sources on which this article deserves to be in the mainspace? Moreover, All the sources I’ve been through just cover shibli’s Arrest. Isn’t this a BLP1E? Check Arrest of Kamran Yusuf, If Shibli gets an standalone article I’d definitely love to work on Kamran Yusuf’s article. Please don’t think this is personal or something like that, I’ve just stated facts above in accordance to wikipedia’s policies. If i am wrong, do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]