User talk:RoySmith

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, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies
Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward)

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

DRV

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 11:10, Wednesday, May 15, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

The Weight of Chains 2

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg-Süd

I don't understand your close here. I see nothing for a closer to do but read the AfD. The policy to WP:Preserve the redirect is asserted and unrefuted, and deletion equally clearly causes damage to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe (talk · contribs), Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs), LibStar (talk · contribs), and The Bushranger (talk · contribs), would you support undeletion of the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge to Bundesautobahn 524? If there is concern that the redirect will be undone, perhaps the redirect can be fully protected to allay the concern. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There really wasn't anything of usefulness to be merged, as I recall. Imzadi 1979 → 07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs), based on the Google cache, I think there is encyclopedic information that could improve Bundesautobahn 524's coverage of Kreuz Duisburg-Süd's geography and history. I think this content is what Unscintillating found worthy of preserving. Sources like this article^WebCite in Derwesten (published by Funke Mediengruppe) could be used to verify the material. I appreciate your taking a look. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support delete over redirect. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion, other than my distinct annoyance that WP:PRESERVE is still brought up in deletion arguments when it is an editing policy with no bearing on deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for over four years and this is the first I have heard of such a viewpoint. Please see WP:Insignificance, which describes the relationship between the topic guideline WP:N, and the WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was pretty open-and-shut, I don't see how I could have closed it any other way. If somebody wants to mine the old text, I'd be happy to userfy it upon request. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would give me the opportunity to do some edits such as adding the source Cunard found to the article before returning it to mainspace as a redirect. OK. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Unscintillating/Kreuz Duisburg-Süd -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, there is something unusual going on for the two articles that currently mention this kreuz. Those articles are Bundesautobahn 524 and Bundesautobahn 59. What are these IPs up to? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Own Band (2nd nomination)

On a close like the one above, I believe more of an explanation for the "no consensus" explanation might be merited. Something that explained what factors you weighed and how you found the arguments balanced, or something to that effect. In my view, since "no consensus", by necessity, defaults to "keep", the "keep" arguments should have to be better than the delete arguments to even get to a "no consensus", but that's a different discussion. I just feel like a more nuanced close would have been useful in this case. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm concerned with the fact that you give no weight to the article having been deleted on the Maltese WP. How can a band not notable enough to pass muster for deletion on IT'S OWN COUNTRY'S Wikipedia possibly be notable enough to have an article on the ENGLISH Wikipedia? I just feel like dismissing that piece of the equation altogether is a big mistake, particularly given the weakness of the keep arguments at that discussion, and the fact that there was not much refutation at all of the nominator's claims for deletion. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 03:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some logic in what you say, but each wiki makes its own decisions. If you really feel strongly about this, I suppose you could bring it back to AfD for another discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, when the decision is numerically close (and this one was, even though the "Keep" arguments seemed to me quite weak), such things ought to be considered. While I have no expectations that you will reconsider this close, I hope that in the future you won't dismiss such evidence of non-notability as was presented regarding the band article's deletion on its native country's Wikipedia. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Weight_to_give_to_deletions_on_other_wikis. You might want to chime in there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. I appreciate your openness to discussion about it. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 01:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	While I very much disagree with your closing rationale on the King's Own Band AFD, I do respect how willing you've been to discuss that rationale, and to submit it for wider discussion at the DRV talkpage as well. Keep up the good work! Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Charvériat

Hello RoySmith, regarding your redirect of Thomas Charvériat to Island6 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Charvériat. There was a COI investigation after which you stated 'may affect things in the future' and that for now, the consensus was to redirect: two votes for redirect and one for keep. If you could review the strength of arguments presented, based on facts (rather than expressed opinions), I think it shows notability, and thus that the article should be kept. Unfortunately, the AfD was launched before discussion of the fundamental issues at the Talk page, i.e., before the bulk of independent sources was listed. The issue of COI has been discussed without resolution. Opinions on that aside, the notability of the artist is determined by the independent verifiable sources. Claims of sock and meat directed at myself, too, proved negative or inconclusive. My role as a former curator, now editor specialized in visual arts, had been to bring these sources/citations to light. Note: This whole process was launched by a suspected sockpuppet, see this exchange, and this one. Thanks for your reconsideration. Coldcreation (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page wasn't actually deleted, and it's not protected, you don't need an admin to get involved here. My suggestion would be to start a conversation on Talk:Island6 on the topic of splitting Thomas Charvériat back out into its own article. The issue at the AfD was that there were insufficient WP:RS. So, I would also suggest you find a number of sources which meet our requirements for being independant, reliable, etc, as laid out in WP:RS, and present those as part of your argument. Ping the people who participated in the original AfD so they're aware of the discussion. If you can garner support for splitting it back out, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already produced close to 20 independent and reliable sources, posted here, demonstrating the notability of the artist, per WP:RS. Coldcreation (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, those sources were considered and rejected at the AfD. But, in any case, I'm not the one you need to convince. LIke I said, open a discussion on the article talk page and see if the people editing that article and/or participating in the AfD agree with you. I'm afraid there's not much more I can do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retroscripting placed under Deletion review

For your information, I have initiated a Deletion review discussion about your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retroscripting. JIP | Talk 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AusGamers

Hey—as a deletion review regular, I wanted to ask your opinion of this AfD's "no consensus" closure before I take it to discussion. I thought it was clear that the keep votes were not based in policy. czar 02:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I would have closed that. I certainly agree with you that the argument by Aeonx doesn't add anything to the debate, and the list of sources by Kansiime are mostly marginal. Bringing this to DRV would not be unreasonable (of course, query the closer first to see if this can be resolved). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the closer wasn't sympathetic. Appreciate your feedback! czar 02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Masters Champions League

Hi, I'm curious as to the policy behind your closure of the above AFD. Certainly the weight of numbers was in favour of keeping it, but to be honest, I can't see any substantial arguments about how the only season conducted by the league is independent of the organization which operated said league. Would it be inappropriate of me to commence a merge discussion? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I almost called that one No Consensus, because I didn't really see any good arguments on either side. I certainly see no harm in starting a discussion on the article talk page about a merge. If you can build consensus, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. Personally, if I came across the article first I would have proposed a merge rather than taking it to AFD. I didn't want to be seen to be stepping on your toes so soon after your decision. I think a merge discussion is supposed to last 2-4 weeks and I will notify the cricket project, so hopefully it will get a better conclusion. Thanks again, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have mentioned this discussion in the merge proposal. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote:

The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia [1]. So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press:

Chicago
1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term "Rotation" derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU.
2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633.

I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable.

Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half:

CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules

"HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable.

"RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online.

Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind.

Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]