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 |
Backlog
Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks
GAN report: mystery solved?
Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.
I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.
I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.
Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
GANs to do
- Talk:Park Avenue main line/GA1
- Talk:Martin Scorsese/GA1 (unless someone gets there first)
New Years Greetings
I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
More readable article
Thanks for listening to me and making the changes. May I also suggest you consider changing the rather long sentence: "It used to be only the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages, but it now may also cover any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.) or at all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning." I count about 66 words which requires a grade 31 to read (how many PHDs is that :). Here is a suggested revision: At one time it only related to the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages. Now it may cover either a) any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.), or b) all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning. I will leave it too you. Cheers. John (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
February songs
![]() | |
frozen |
---|
Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music - I pointed at one of your closes for a discussion related to Cosima Wagner --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: These are lovely! I've only recently started to appreciate just how much flowers can liven up a space, even a virtual space. For Valentine's Day I got some cut flowers that I've managed to keep alive for a week which is a record for me! I'm glad you found my close useful, and hopefully the talk page discussion comes to a good way to move forward with the article. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion moved a bit but I see my language limits. If you have a bit of time, I'd appreciate you looking and perhaps evaluating arguments. I compare the article to Imogen Holst, by the same beloved and missed principal author, to which he added an "identibox" before nominating as FAC, in 2014 that was. - What I fail to understand: an obviously new user added very basic data, strangely formatted below the image. Why not just improve that, but revert without explaining? Imagine ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- On IWD, I show two who didn't make it to DYK yet, one from Russia and one from Ukraine. Both are at least in prep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-09
22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Recent Contribution
Hello. I am here to tell you that your WP:BOLD merge for the Okhtyrka vacuum bomb attack was contested and reverted. Feel free to open a discussion on the talk page if your disagree and let the community decide if it should be redirected! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: I recommend you read the policies and guidelines I linked to in my edit summary. Particularly WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Creating multiple stubs for the same topic is not a good idea and generally against policy. You've created an additional page that needs to be updated and patrolled by administrators based on initial, unsubstantiated reports. That should go in the main article and only spun out when there is a good reason. We're supposed to expand stubs, so spinning out a paragraph is unhelpful. I would prefer that you revert yourself and contribute to Battle of Okhtyrka, otherwise my plan is to nominate the page at AFD for failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. — Wug·a·po·des 01:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I do not see where you get WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The vacuum bomb was confirmed by the Ukrainian ambassador (so crystal is eliminated as an option), and if you haven't checked the sources, I have multiple, international news organizations for sources. No chance of it being deleted at AfD, though, if you want, you can try for a merge proposal. I feel like this will be more relevant once ICC starts listing war crimes, since this was a war crime (Per Ukrainian President). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip:
I feel like this will be more relevant once ICC starts listing war crimes
That's what crystal is about. You're speculating on the significance of this event based on routine reporting about one person's claims. Your claim that this is a war crime is sourced to that same individual and isn't something to speculate on. We're not a newspaper and we don't create a new page for every event that happens. As both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT point out, an event being widely reported on by news organizations at the time of the event isn't a reliable indicator of notability, and you have the additional problems of explaining why a split is even necessary. Notability doesn't guarantee a standalone article, see Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages. Again, I think you should reconsider whether this is useful, especially since you've made five reverts today on that page today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in violation of WP:3RR. — Wug·a·po·des 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)- I see a different view point from you, so I encourage you, once again, to start a merge proposal and let the community decide. It isn't that difficult to start one if you really think it should be merged. Also, please don't try to "threaten/urge" me with the 3RR, that seems very low and honestly more like a personal attack than a true "urge". If you really want me to revert it, I will, however, I will start a split proposal on the talk page right afterward due to my different view point. Honestly, all the pain could be prevented if you just start a merge proposal. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. Actually, since you are using that 3RR "urge", I will go ahead and follow the plan I stated above. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update - I have merged the content. Though please understand, that I do not respect you as an editor for that "urge/personal attack" toward me. I respect your contributions to Wikipedia, but for someone to try to use that as a "urge/threat" is too low for me. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: I'm not trying to threaten you, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I thought a formal warning on your talk page would be far more confrontational, so I preferred saying it to you here. The fact of the matter is that you are edit warring to keep the page in a particular state. The merge/split decision is only one aspect of that larger issue, and I thought you should be made aware of it. — Wug·a·po·des 02:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my bad. I just saw you are an admin. I do appreciate the soft warning for the 3RR violation. Sorry that I interpreted that as an attack and I appreciate the alert about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: No worries, and I do feel bad that I came off that way. It's a rough time, and I can only imagine the kinds of editors you've been dealing with. I could have been clearer about my points and done a better job separating the 3RR note and the content stuff. Mixing those was a bad idea in hindsight. For the future, I hope you don't worry about challenging administrators, policy forbids administrators from using their tools to win content disputes. In my mind we're two editors having a normal discussion, and I would actually prefer to just have the discussion as equals.As for the merge/split discussion, I'll go comment there with my thoughts. Sorry about this misunderstanding, but hopefully we can come to a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 02:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- All good. No hard feeling. Thank you for everything you do on Wikipedia. You seem to be one of the "behind the scenes" admins, and that goes a long way to improving Wikipedia. Thank you and enjoy the cookie. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: No worries, and I do feel bad that I came off that way. It's a rough time, and I can only imagine the kinds of editors you've been dealing with. I could have been clearer about my points and done a better job separating the 3RR note and the content stuff. Mixing those was a bad idea in hindsight. For the future, I hope you don't worry about challenging administrators, policy forbids administrators from using their tools to win content disputes. In my mind we're two editors having a normal discussion, and I would actually prefer to just have the discussion as equals.As for the merge/split discussion, I'll go comment there with my thoughts. Sorry about this misunderstanding, but hopefully we can come to a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 02:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my bad. I just saw you are an admin. I do appreciate the soft warning for the 3RR violation. Sorry that I interpreted that as an attack and I appreciate the alert about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip:
- Personally, I do not see where you get WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The vacuum bomb was confirmed by the Ukrainian ambassador (so crystal is eliminated as an option), and if you haven't checked the sources, I have multiple, international news organizations for sources. No chance of it being deleted at AfD, though, if you want, you can try for a merge proposal. I feel like this will be more relevant once ICC starts listing war crimes, since this was a war crime (Per Ukrainian President). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mohsin Talat creating page
the page about Pakistani drama director Mohsin Talat is necessary , why you redirect a far relate topic Tere Mere Beech. Kindly don't create redirect and allow the proper information page about person Mohsin Talat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Nooruddin2020, I didn't create that redirect. The redirect was created in 2019 by the now-blocked Ghazal Pervaiz; I added categories to the page soon afterwards. You removed the redirect a few days ago and created an article. Onel5969 undid your change citing our inclusion criteria. I would recommend writing a draft first to get more feedback and to make sure that the subject qualifies for an article. — Wug·a·po·des 19:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Chicago Fire Department And Others
Mr.Wugapodes, the static ip address that you blocked for a year is back doing disruptive editing again. 172.58.188.128 he is using now. Can you please check it out. Thank you Doriden (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Doriden: thanks for reporting this. Drmies has blocked the IP range for 6 months, but if you see more disruption let either of us know. @Drmies, looking through my talk page archive, this person has also used an IPv6 device to evade previous IPv4 blocks. The /64 blocks I placed are still active, but something to keep an eye out for if you come across this issue again. — Wug·a·po·des 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Wugapodes, its the same person from several months ago who is blocked for a year. Yes I can see the 6 months block but the other ip address he is using is only blocked for 31 hours. That one is 172.58.188.128. As soon as the 31 hours expire he'll be at it again. Thank you very much for your assistance, Doriden (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Doriden: What other IP? — Wug·a·po·des 20:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Wugapodes, the ip address that he is using now that is blocked for only 31 hours is 172.58.188.231 sorry for my error. Yes, this ip address is blocked only for 31 hours and started about 2 am eastern time. He will definitely be back at it soon from this other ip address. Thank you and sorry for my mix up of the ip address. Doriden (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Doriden: Thanks for clarifying. The way IP blocks work can be confusing, but that IP is also blocked for 6 months. The simple explanation is that IPs can have two simultaneous blocks which is the case here. IP ...231 is blocked for 31 hours, but it is also covered by the 6-month range block that Drmies placed. Once the 31 hour block expires, the ...231 IP still won't be able to edit because of the second, longer block. You can see this by looking at the contributions for the IP range Drmies blocked. At the top is ...231, so it's part of that 6 month block. — Wug·a·po·des 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Wugapodes, the ip address that he is using now that is blocked for only 31 hours is 172.58.188.231 sorry for my error. Yes, this ip address is blocked only for 31 hours and started about 2 am eastern time. He will definitely be back at it soon from this other ip address. Thank you and sorry for my mix up of the ip address. Doriden (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Doriden: What other IP? — Wug·a·po·des 20:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Wugapodes, its the same person from several months ago who is blocked for a year. Yes I can see the 6 months block but the other ip address he is using is only blocked for 31 hours. That one is 172.58.188.128. As soon as the 31 hours expire he'll be at it again. Thank you very much for your assistance, Doriden (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This is it, I'm going back and forth making mistakes and getting mixed up. Its 172.58.128.188 that is blocked for 31 hours. I'm so sorry for the my mix up. Doriden (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Again I apologize for getting it wrong. This is the correct one 172.58.188.128 that is the OP address that is blocked for only 31 hours. He was using it last night then switched to the one that is blocked for six months. I really apologize, you must think I'm a nut. So sorry. But this is the correct ip address that is blocked for only 31 hours by drmies. Doriden (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Understood, I really am sorry for getting the ip addresses mixed up three times. You must think that I am a bumbling fool. Thank you so much for your assistance, I won't disturb you anymore. Doriden (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Doriden: No worries, IP addresses are confusing, and you're not the first to mix the numbers up. Thanks for clarifying and keeping an eye out. Let me know if you need anything in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again Mr.Wugapodes, Doriden (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Message regarding Capricorn from Artoria2e5: R from monotypic taxon
Capricorn does not seem to have {{R from monotypic taxon}}
in its toolbox. Would you kindly put it in the big template file? (I do wonder what the inclusion criteria are for everything from Category:Redirect templates.) --Artoria2e5 🌉 12:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's too fancy for me: I don't understand the question, but I'm sure there are talk page watchers who can do this immediately while shaking their head at my ignorance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Artoria2e5: Fixed. It was previously under "Systematic name, From" which is why it was hard to find. I moved it to "Related Information, From" to match the placement of
{{R to monotypic taxon}}
. I try to include all redirect category templates, but I don't actively keep track of that category. I assume that if a template gets popular enough or has a good enough reason to exist, someone will mention it to me. @Drmies: I keep a big json file of redirect templates (and redirects to them) in my user space, and occasionally I get update requests. Those files are used to make the interface for the Capricorn user script. It's not that complicated, but most of the steps live in my head. Technically, any admin can edit the list, so I might write instructions on that one day... — Wug·a·po·des 01:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- Wugapodes--for some reason I thought, when I answered, that this was my talk page. I'm having a truly senior moment. Somehow I must have gotten confused after that Chicago Fire Department notification. User:Artoria2e5, you must have wondered what on earth I was doing answering your question on someone else's talk page--my apologies. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
NSPORTS RFC
Update I have self-requested review of the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review (diff). — Wug·a·po·des 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I seem to be repeating myself, and I will be unable to respond to most questions until tomorrow at the earliest. Editors may request community review of the close at the administrators' noticeboard. — Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for taking on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Regarding the close, I believe the main contention with the SNG was its one-game inclusion criteria. If that is now removed per Proposal 3, I don't think Proposal 5 is needed, as it was addressing the occasional cases where the one-game criteria was supporting a questionable stub.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bagumba, I got a different reading of the discussion. My understanding was that editors were concerned about the number "permastubs" in general. While the one-game criteria definitely contributed to that perceived problem, it's only part of the wider class targeted by proposal 5. There's definitely overlap between 3 and 5, but I think they get at different-enough issues that they can fit together fine. — Wug·a·po·des 07:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the nuance I described got lost as a result of all the parallel proposals. At any rate, proposal 5—in the absence of a new type of PROD—is really business as usual with a normal PROD or AfD. In theory, it's nothing more than WP:BEFORE, whether or not that source is cited. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thanks for the close. Could you sign your closing statement? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: it is signed, prior to the by-section summaries. — Wug·a·po·des 04:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- A sig at the bottom of the by-section summaries might help those also afflicted with temporary blindness like I was! Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: it is signed, prior to the by-section summaries. — Wug·a·po·des 04:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just wanted to drop my own thanks for taking us this beast of a close Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very surprised we've gone from an RFC, to an unreadable TLDR series of proposals that became poorly attended as time past, to a final conclusion. Shouldn't there be discussion on the consensus - to make sure it is consensus, before such a monumental change, that's going to create a slew of deletions - particularly for historic and athletes outside the Anglosphere? A weakness here is a clear definition of what comprises "significant" coverage. The discussion seems to imply that it's more than a database entry. The dictionary tells us it's 'noteworthy'. Yet we've been mired for years, with some telling us that even a full article in a national paper (let alone a note) describing a player moving from one team to another is not significant. I think we should walk this back until we get a clear discussion on what 'significant' means - and until we find a way to mitigate for players and time periods, where we simply don't have access to confirm that a player with (for example) dozens of international appearances has significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: The definition participants referenced is at WP:SIGCOV. The consensus was rather clear for the requirement, and like how we do it for GNG cases, what constitutes "significant coverage" can be worked out on a case-by-case basis at AFD or through an RfC like usual. I don't see why this would need to be treated any differently. — Wug·a·po·des 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- After years of debate at AFD, we still have very different views by some of what is significant coverage. Previously we could deflect a lot of it by pointing to NSPORTS. But by removing sport-specific criteria, I fear all we do is simply have to do a lot more dealing with it, case-by-case, at AFD. Personally, I don't so much see consensus, I see bludgeoning, TLDR, and ... good grief, 14 different proposals? Still - kudos for having spent the time to close it ... I can't imagine how much that hurt. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reading the discussion at WT:WikiProject Football#Operating without WP:NFOOTBALL this goes beyond my concerns that it will unevenly impact the already underrepresented non-English non-male athletes - it will also service to encourage the creation of articles for semi-professional English players (at least in football) and teenage prospects for EPL, who the NFOOTBALL criteria of having played in a fully professional league previously discouraged creation of new articles. So likely no decrease in number of articles, a lot more AFDs, and a lot more bias. Perhaps Boris Johnson is here under a pseudonym ☺? Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: The definition participants referenced is at WP:SIGCOV. The consensus was rather clear for the requirement, and like how we do it for GNG cases, what constitutes "significant coverage" can be worked out on a case-by-case basis at AFD or through an RfC like usual. I don't see why this would need to be treated any differently. — Wug·a·po·des 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Subproposal 5
As the author of subproposal 5, I struggle to see how you were able to find (a) no consensus for the original version which would have required one example of SIGCOV from inception of a new article (i.e., it would serve as a powerful deterrent to the creation of new permastubs after the adoption of subproposal 5), but then find (b) actual consensus for a far more radical rewrite which would require all articles (both those created before and after the adoption of subproposal 5) to have at least one example of SIGCOV. I've gone back and reviewed the voting. Out of the 85 or so votes cast on subproposal 5, I only see a handful or so advocating for the more radical approach. Accordingly, and while the consensus clearly favored the original subproposal five, I do not see how you can say that there was broad consensus for the more radical approach. Can you clarify the basis upon which you found such a consensus? Cbl62 (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: The opposition is fatal to the original proposal. Consider the thought experiment brought up by Hut 8.5: a user creates an article without a source showing significant coverage, someone adds such a source. The original proposal says sports bios must have a sigcov source "from inception", so what do we do? If we don't delete it, then the "from inception" part is meaningless. If we do delete it, then we've made an absurd decision based on a criterion that is stricter than any of our deletion policies. This flaw in the original draft was serious enough that even supporters disavowed that interpretation. For example, in response to Hut, Ahect (who supported) said
It's not saying "Delete any article that didn't show SIGCOV in it's first revision", it's saying "Any article without SIGCOV is eligible for deletion even if was just created"
. Now of course some people wanted that initial creation restriction, but others did not. A requirement-from-inception interpretation precludes the fix-or-delete interpretation, so it is not possible to lump the two together and say the original proposal succeeds. Numerically, and on the strength of the arguments, the original proposal does not have consensus.Now, I could have stopped there, but clearly editors agreed on something given the number of supports. While the requirement-from-inception excludes fix-or-delete, the reverse is not true. The interpretations among supporters were not mutually exclusive, and both interpretations agree that a sports bio should have a citation to a source with significant coverage; supporters just disagree on when it must be added (first edit vs when challenged). That's a workable interpretation. It's based on the discussion, consistent with all supports, and undermines most oppose arguments which rely on the inconsistency of the original proposal. That's the hallmark of a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- Subproposal 5 was simply intended to stem the tide of new microstubs sourced only to databases. It requires that new articles have SIGCOV. Thus the "inception" language. Efforts to rewrite it to extend it to articles that were already in existence is a fundamental and radical rewrite of the proposal -- and one for which I do not see the consensus. Indeed, I as the initial proponent of subproposal 5 would have voted against imposing such a requirement on all existing articles. Your close rewrites the proposal in a way that you believe makes more sense, but which was not what folks were actually voting on. If you thought the original proposal was unclear (i.e., you say "clearly editors agreed on something", that's fine. But it's not the closer's job to decide that a proposal was unclear and then take it upon themself to choose one of the possible interpretations and decide it makes the best sense. This strikes me as a "supervote" on your part. Cbl62 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should note that my interpretation of subproposal 5 (I didn't vote on it, I believe, as I was focusing on others) aligns with Wug's. My own thought on why the "from inception" was there was just to counter the "eventually" that is found elsewhere in NSPORTS - there's no way that indicating "delete or fix" would be non-viable could be warranted, and discussion appears to back that up. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the intent at all. The "eventually" language remains in full force. The close represents a hijacking of the intent which was clearly expressed several times, which was to simply require SIGCOV from inception for articles created after the adoption of subproposal 5. The close applies a construction which I never intended as proposer, and there was certainly no consensus for such a radical interpretation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Unfortunately, after 80-some people participate in a discussion, the original intention doesn't matter much. The job of a closer is to interpret the discussion, and there were more opinions on the wording than just yours. While you may have intended or interpreted the wording a particular way, others did not have the same interpretation. If this were to actually become policy, more people than just you would read and interpret it, so general understandings are more important than your authorial intent. To summarize the issue in a sentence: there was a consensus for everything except "from inception" which confused people and did not reach consensus. If you believe I misread consensus you can request a close review at the administrators' noticeboard. — Wug·a·po·des 04:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: In reviewing the 80-some votes, I do not see a majority, or even a significant minority, saying that the proposal should apply to all articles and not just "newly created" articles. It seems to me that you either (a) have a gift of reading the minds of the 80 voters, or (b) you have imposed your own super-vote in closing this important and month-long process. Cbl62 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Unfortunately, after 80-some people participate in a discussion, the original intention doesn't matter much. The job of a closer is to interpret the discussion, and there were more opinions on the wording than just yours. While you may have intended or interpreted the wording a particular way, others did not have the same interpretation. If this were to actually become policy, more people than just you would read and interpret it, so general understandings are more important than your authorial intent. To summarize the issue in a sentence: there was a consensus for everything except "from inception" which confused people and did not reach consensus. If you believe I misread consensus you can request a close review at the administrators' noticeboard. — Wug·a·po·des 04:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the intent at all. The "eventually" language remains in full force. The close represents a hijacking of the intent which was clearly expressed several times, which was to simply require SIGCOV from inception for articles created after the adoption of subproposal 5. The close applies a construction which I never intended as proposer, and there was certainly no consensus for such a radical interpretation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should note that my interpretation of subproposal 5 (I didn't vote on it, I believe, as I was focusing on others) aligns with Wug's. My own thought on why the "from inception" was there was just to counter the "eventually" that is found elsewhere in NSPORTS - there's no way that indicating "delete or fix" would be non-viable could be warranted, and discussion appears to back that up. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Proposal 5 simply changes the requisite sourcing for the claim of notability (and therefore the sourcing necessary for presumption of GNG) from being an RS verifying a subject meets an SSG criterion, to that and one IRS providing SIGCOV. It does not license deletion of articles with SIGCOV sources that didn't have them "from inception" (what.) any more than the current guideline does. That would be ridiculous. It also does not affect the existing requirement that NSPORT subjects meet GNG, nor the existing requirement that articles eventually demonstrate a subject meets GNG through incorporation of GNG-level sourcing into the article. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also adding my support for the close on proposal 5. It is clear from the comments alongside the support votes, that they didn't view it as only applying to new articles. The "since inception" thing was pushed-back upon for the reasons given above, and would be a rationale for deletion not found anywhere else on the project. But the overall principle was supported with no need for grandfathering IMHO, as someone who didn't participate in the RFC at all. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ugh. Nobody every advocated that "inception" meant that it couldn't be cured. The intent, expressed repeatedly and overwhelmingly supported, was that this would be a requirement to apply to the creation of new articles. JoelleJay knew that, as we expressly discussed it. Others new at as well, and it is now being twisted into something that was (i) never intended, and (ii) never understood by the majority of the support voters. A complete travesty. So, what's new, eh? The deletionists get another arrow to use at AfDs, and one that was never, ever supported by consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also adding my support for the close on proposal 5. It is clear from the comments alongside the support votes, that they didn't view it as only applying to new articles. The "since inception" thing was pushed-back upon for the reasons given above, and would be a rationale for deletion not found anywhere else on the project. But the overall principle was supported with no need for grandfathering IMHO, as someone who didn't participate in the RFC at all. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Subproposal 5 was simply intended to stem the tide of new microstubs sourced only to databases. It requires that new articles have SIGCOV. Thus the "inception" language. Efforts to rewrite it to extend it to articles that were already in existence is a fundamental and radical rewrite of the proposal -- and one for which I do not see the consensus. Indeed, I as the initial proponent of subproposal 5 would have voted against imposing such a requirement on all existing articles. Your close rewrites the proposal in a way that you believe makes more sense, but which was not what folks were actually voting on. If you thought the original proposal was unclear (i.e., you say "clearly editors agreed on something", that's fine. But it's not the closer's job to decide that a proposal was unclear and then take it upon themself to choose one of the possible interpretations and decide it makes the best sense. This strikes me as a "supervote" on your part. Cbl62 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Subproposal 1
While I don't necessarily disagree with the close outcome, your close statement completely mischaracterizes both the proposal and the !votes.
1. ditors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG.
The wording explicitly requires an athlete biography demonstrate it meets GNG if challenged at AfD. It does not change the existing requirement that the subjects of these articles meet GNG, or the rebuttable presumption of GNG afforded by meeting a sport-specific subguideline when notability isn't challenged. Again, the consensus is and has been reaffirmed repeatedly that NSPORT subguideline criteria (e.g. NFOOTY) are calibrated to predict GNG, not supersede it. You linked, as evidence of precedent for the opposition, one DRV outcome that was not mentioned in the proposal's discussion and for which the close didn't even address guideline hierarchy, while totally ignoring the dozens of directly relevant precedent-setting examples that were actually brought up by !voters in the proposal and which overwhelmingly point to the consensus that GNG supersedes NSPORT subguidelines. Even if we expand the applicable discussion to include everything on the page, there is zero reason to reference that DRV without also mentioning others, like Pete Vainowski, where the closer explicitly opined To win the argument the overturn side need to demonstrate that the closing admin erred in favouring the GNG argument over NSPORTs / GRIDIRON. They have not clearly done so and in closing I was drawn to the language in NSPORTs that the GNG takes precedence if an article fails the SNG but passes GNG. On that basis, and bearing in mind that the onus is on the side asserting sources to show they exist, the outcome of this AFD is endorsed.
Or A Lawrey, where the close was Endorsed. While a relist might have been possible, its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option.
2. Regarding the proposal's consensus: By last count, numerically there were 36 support and 32 oppose !votes, with 2 opposes clearly misplaced (-> 38s:30o), another 3 opposes supportive if applied to all SNGs, 1 comment that leaned oppose (38s:31o), and 3 comments that were supportive (41s:31o). Given a non-trivial proportion of oppose !votes were based on a misunderstanding of the current guideline or a misunderstanding that the proposal applied to all SNGs, or were predicated on logical impossibilities, the assessment that Editors were evenly split
is not a fair description.
3. Regarding the consensus interpretation of NSPORT underlying this proposal, you said The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding
. Equating opposition to the proposal with rejection of its underlying premise is improper. Of the 31 oppose !voters, only a few even addressed this topic directly, and of those, at least 6 explicitly recognized the current guideline predicts GNG and eventually requires articles include GNG sourcing. Even if we count all other opposes as if they directly dispute this interpretation, that still leaves us with ~65% of participants reaffirming it.
I would also point out that "should" (in the guideline) and "must" (in the proposal) are meaningfully distinctis entirely misleading, as participants noted numerous times that the guideline does currently contain "must" (
eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.), and this was not sufficiently contested by the opposers. Furthermore, as participants noted, the guideline makes it clear in multiple places that the presumption of notability conferred by its subcriteria is entirely in relation to and dependent upon GNG. That is why the first sentence says
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.That is why the third sentence says
If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.Note that neither says meeting SSG criteria means a subject is notable or merits an article. These are the only two sentences in the lead that actually concern notability of a subject (in the same sense described at WP:ARTN). The second sentence,
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below, applies only to the sourcing NSPORT requires for supporting an assertion of notability.
Detailed explanation of how NSPORT works
|
---|
For a subject governed strictly by GNG, 2+ pieces of GNG-meeting SIGCOV should be present in the article to support a claim of notability. Without those sources directly demonstrating GNG, the article has increased susceptibility to NPP/drive-by tagging/AfD/PROD attention, and for subjects where SIGCOV may be hard to find even if it exists, there is a much higher chance a notable subject will be deleted. The purpose of NSPORT is to waylay that risk and facilitate creation of articles on GNG-notable subjects. It does this by 1) identifying rules-of-thumb that should correspond to SIGCOV across multiple IRS in 95% of cases; 2) classifying these criteria as easily-findable, valid claims of GNG notability (thereby preventing CSD); 3) allowing an article to support its claim to notability with RS showing the subject meets one of those criteria, rather than directly demonstrating GNG (thereby preventing AfC rejection and discouraging scrutiny from NPP/drive-by taggers/PRODders); 4) providing some leeway in how much time editors have to find sources on historical/non-Anglophone subjects (giving some wiggle room at AfD if the nominator's BEFORE search came up empty); and 5) maintaining the presumption of GNG notability of AfD subjects very strongly meeting an SSG when the presumption itself is not adequately rebutted (by proving a thorough BEFORE search has been performed). |
Together, these oversights are suggestive of a supervote, and I therefore request you amend the wording of the proposal's close to more accurately reflect both the background (as provided in the proposal's discussion) and the consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: I appreciate you putting this together. At the top of WP:NSPORTS as of March 6, in bold letters, the guideline said "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (emphasis original). The word "or" means that either the first, second, or both criteria may be met. Editors may wish that it said "and", some even argued the equivalent of that, but the guideline is clear that meeting an NSPORTS criterion and not the GNG is sufficient. Later, under the heading "Applicable policies and guidelines", NSPORTS says "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". This line was brought up by a supporter which is why I referenced it. Like "or", the word "should" has a meaning. The proposal used "must" which is not the same word and has a different meaning. The supporters arguments claimed to be the correct interpretation, but the interpretation is not consistent with the wording of the guideline. The next question is whether there is sufficient support for it to change the guideline to reflect the obligation ("must") as outlined in the proposal. Obviously not. Supporters generally failed to convince other editors that their interpretation is correct or desirable, with roughly half disagreeing based on the actual guideline.In general, your objections here suffer from the same problem that support arguments had. You may believe this is how NSPORT operates already, and you may have explanations for why "or" and "should" don't have their usual meanings here, but after two months nearly half of participants disagreed with you (your numbers only work if I but your interpretation of the guideline). That's not a consensus, and even if there were a rough consensus it wouldn't be strong enough to make a binding, policy-like requirement. I believe my close for that proposal was an adequate summary of that conflict and the ultimate outcome was no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no, NSPORTS itself (not just the proposal) says that sources must (emphasis not mine) be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. It's right there in the collapsible FAQ, and JoelleJay just quoted it for you. If you think so many people don't find this the 'correct' interpretation, then let them start their own RfC. Avilich (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the guideline itself is internally inconsistent, that makes the claim of consensus less reasonable, not more. That said, my understanding is that top level summaries like {{FAQ}} and {{Nutshell}} do not have the same standing as the actual guidelines because they are not subject to the same vetting. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ has fewer than 30 watchers who monitor changes, but the main policy page has over ten times more at 315 watchers. Even if I concede that the FAQ has the same weight as a guideline, the discussion does not show a consensus for that interpretation and the policy would not support discounting the oppose rationales. — Wug·a·po·des 06:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you're seeking a literal interpretation of the sentence, it says that "the article should provide reliable sources", not that the standards of inclusion (that is, English Wikipedia notability) are met by meeting the general notability guideline or one of the sports notability guidelines. The sentence is about including a citation for whatever standard is being used, not about whether or not meeting a sports notability guideline precludes the need to eventually demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeking a particularly literal interpretation of the sentence, I'm trying to explain how a reasonable reader could look at that sentence and come to an opposing view point from the one offered by supporters. — Wug·a·po·des 06:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- When arguing that words have meanings, then the meaning of all them have to be examined together, and the context in which they were written. (Lots of the people involved in writing the sentence are still here, and so no guesswork is required about what was meant: they've said what they meant, and I documented it in the FAQ.) I disagree that a consensus is less established because there is some disagreement in interpretation: the practical reality is that groups quickly diverge in opinions as they grow, and so there are a lot of varying viewpoints on many guidelines and policies. And writing guidance quickly becomes a "too many cooks" problem: it's really hard to get people to agree on wording. But how the original consensus was written down is kind of moot anyway when trying to figure out what the current consensus is. isaacl (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused what your point is here, Isaac. I'm aware you wrote the FAQ, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple editors interpret the policy differently from those handful of discussions in the FAQ box. I'm not going to say their understanding is wrong because the main document is unclear and the only clear part was written by a few people on a barely watched page based on discussions from last decade. We had over 80 people discussing how they believe the policy is and should be understood in the contemporary community, and I would argue that has more legitimacy than a 2017 discussion. In fact your 2017 proposal to use "must" in the second sentence was opposed by editors in that discussion for the same reason. The proposal said "must" which opposers understood as meaningfully different compared to the current uses of "should" (just like commentators in 2017). Supporters argued it wasn't. This didn't convince a large number of people who still continued to oppose. That there's no consensus on this point seems clear to me because participants simply couldn't agree on whether it is an obligation (must) or recommendation (should). — Wug·a·po·des 08:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- My point is there's no reason to try to compare the older discussion with the latest one. Let's just talk about the current discussion and not get bogged down in why the guideline was written in a certain way in the past, or how many people supported X versus Y. It doesn't matter anymore, with a fresh discussion covering all the various arguments. isaacl (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused what your point is here, Isaac. I'm aware you wrote the FAQ, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple editors interpret the policy differently from those handful of discussions in the FAQ box. I'm not going to say their understanding is wrong because the main document is unclear and the only clear part was written by a few people on a barely watched page based on discussions from last decade. We had over 80 people discussing how they believe the policy is and should be understood in the contemporary community, and I would argue that has more legitimacy than a 2017 discussion. In fact your 2017 proposal to use "must" in the second sentence was opposed by editors in that discussion for the same reason. The proposal said "must" which opposers understood as meaningfully different compared to the current uses of "should" (just like commentators in 2017). Supporters argued it wasn't. This didn't convince a large number of people who still continued to oppose. That there's no consensus on this point seems clear to me because participants simply couldn't agree on whether it is an obligation (must) or recommendation (should). — Wug·a·po·des 08:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- When arguing that words have meanings, then the meaning of all them have to be examined together, and the context in which they were written. (Lots of the people involved in writing the sentence are still here, and so no guesswork is required about what was meant: they've said what they meant, and I documented it in the FAQ.) I disagree that a consensus is less established because there is some disagreement in interpretation: the practical reality is that groups quickly diverge in opinions as they grow, and so there are a lot of varying viewpoints on many guidelines and policies. And writing guidance quickly becomes a "too many cooks" problem: it's really hard to get people to agree on wording. But how the original consensus was written down is kind of moot anyway when trying to figure out what the current consensus is. isaacl (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeking a particularly literal interpretation of the sentence, I'm trying to explain how a reasonable reader could look at that sentence and come to an opposing view point from the one offered by supporters. — Wug·a·po·des 06:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Like Isaac I'm a bit confused why you're so glibly rejecting the outcomes of the 2017 RfCs, which have been the consensus guidelines for the past five years. Policies and guidelines don't just expire because they were discussed long ago, indeed many of the most central have remained unchanged since the early noughties. If the result of the discussion point 1 was really no consensus, then the outcome should be the status quo from the prior binding RFC, which is that sports bios must satisfy GNG. This doesn't make NSPORT redundant, as you suggest, as that still provides a useful rule of thumb for what's likely to be notable, but it has the important effect of ensuring that a permastub with no known sources to support it can't keep existing on the basis of the SNG alone. — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I second this. The unambiguous wording on the FAQ (that GNG must be met) reflects the guideline's spirit and the consensus built throughout the years, and, since the FAQ's very purpose is to clarify ambiguities, it takes precedence over whatever 'contradiction' or 'inconsistency' you may find throughout the text. Moreover, the dependence of NSPORT on GNG was acknowledged by the opposing side in subproposal 11, which advocated that said dependence be removed. The proposal failed by your own reckoning, so the dependence of NSPORT on GNG stands. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus can change and if the 5-year-old RfCs were in fact supreme in their documentation of a consensus interpretation we should have seen editor agreement of the same magnitude as the main proposal or proposal 5. The conceit of proposal 1 was that it was documenting the status quo. If it fails to gain consensus, but we affirm the status quo, then that's just a sneaky way of passing proposal 1 without saying so. In a much better attended discussion, the claimed status quo did not find consensus, and that's incredibly important to note. — Wug·a·po·des 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, affirming the status quo is the default course of action when faced with a proposal's failure. If this means that "that's just a sneaky way of passing proposal 1 without saying so", then that's only because proposal 1 was redundant to begin with, but this carries absolutely no weight redardless. Avilich (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the second sentence of NSPORT meant what you want it to mean, how would that make any sense whatsoever with the rest of the guideline, e.g. the places where it says GNG is the inclusion criteria and that meeting GNG is what merits an article for a sportsperson? Or the whole SPORTSBASIC section. Or the applicable policies and guidelines section. If your claim is then that the guideline is just "internally inconsistent", then what makes your interpretation of the second sentence overrule the 5+ places where GNG is mentioned as a prerequisite for an article? It would make far more sense for the ONE sentence to be dismissed rather all the others. But that's all a moot point anyway, because the guideline is not internally inconsistent. As I explained above, as isaacl has explained, as numerous sports AfD closing admins have explained, and as dozens of other people have explained: the second sentence refers to the sourcing needed to support a claim of GNG notability. It does not dictate notability or what merits an article. That would be like saying the sourcing necessary to prevent speedy deletion was sufficient to establish notability.
- To summarize:
- You are ignoring the strong consensus reached in a 2017 RfC.
- You are ignoring the literal text of the FAQs in the guideline, which were added with NSPORT consensus and have existed unchallenged for several years. Your first justification is that that consensus was reached 5 years ago, and that this somehow nullifies that particular finding but not the much older decision to insert the second sentence. Your second justification is that it's "just a top-level summary", and therefore doesn't have the standing of the guideline body.
- You are ignoring the literal text of the guideline body, including the original intent of the lead which is perfectly consistent with the only logical interpretation of the guideline.
- You are ignoring the hundreds of AfDs on SSG-meeting sportspeople who have been deleted due to not meeting GNG.
- You are ignoring the dozens of AfDs that were well-attended enough to warrant lengthy administrative closing statements explicitly reaffirming the consensus interpretation of the guideline.
- You are ignoring the several recent DRV closing statements that upheld the consensus interpretation of the guideline.
- You are ignoring the strict numerical majority of people !voting in proposal 1 itself.
- You are ignoring the 20+% of oppose !voters who explicitly acknowledge the consensus interpretation of the guideline in their comments on proposal 1.
- You are ignoring the consensus opinion of the NOLY RfC that specifically restricted presumption of notability to medallists because editors determined mere participation did not predict GNG coverage 95% of the time.
- You are instead inserting your preformed opinion, against overwhelming consensus, and refusing to acknowledge there is any validity to other editors' arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- You're conflating my explanation of the oppose justification with my personal beliefs about the policy (which I'm sorry if I was not clear on as pointed out in my reply to Isaac above). If your points are strong they should have convinced other editors. They did not. I could agree with your points about what I think is the best way to read the policy, and the fact still remains that a substantial number of editors, more than in previous RfCs brought up, did not agree. — Wug·a·po·des 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no, NSPORTS itself (not just the proposal) says that sources must (emphasis not mine) be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. It's right there in the collapsible FAQ, and JoelleJay just quoted it for you. If you think so many people don't find this the 'correct' interpretation, then let them start their own RfC. Avilich (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Subproposaal 8
Your close of subproposal 8 has been used to drastically change NSPORTS by excising every instances in which the guidelines refer to a presumption of notability. This will be argued by sports editors to mean that NSPORTS is no longer a guideline at all and is now demoted to an essay. Such an outcome is fundamentally inconsistent with the overwhelming majority's vote in the main proposal and subproposal 1, which was not to demote NSPORTS. Can you clarify your closing intention? In your close of subroposal 8, did you intend to override the close of the main proposal and subproposal 1? Was it your intent that all references to a presumption of notability should be stricken? That NSPORTS be demoted from guideline to essay? Cbl62 (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, I hope you don't perceive these post-close inquiries as an attack of any kind on you. It's just that many of us have spent a good chunk of our lives trying to build the best sports encyclopedia in the world. And your closing decision puts our lives' work in jeopardy. Kind of a big deal to us. Cbl62 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Further Note: Having such a profound change in the status of NSPORTS flow form subpproposal 8, which was poorly attended for reasons you noted in your closing statement, would be especially regrettable given the low level of participation and closeness of the voting. The Main Proposal and Subproposal 1 were efforts to gut NSPORTS entirely -- each of which was heavily attended and soundly rejected. To then allow the demotion of NSPORTS to "essay" status via such a poorly attended item as subproosal 8 would be a fundamental misread of the overall consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with everything else you're saying, except
The Main Proposal and Subproposal 1 were efforts to gut NSPORTS entirely -- each of which was heavily attended and soundly rejected.
Subproposal 1 had strict numerical support, and even greater support if you discount the opposes that were actually supports but misunderstood the proposal scope, or the comments that were strongly supportive... JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with everything else you're saying, except
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Closer's Barnstar | |
Thanks for taking on the mammoth task of reading through the 120,000 words of discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability and assessing the community's consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Can you provide the clarification requested above with respect to subproposal 8? Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Proposal 8 had consensus to change some wording to better identify what the criteria are meant to do. I don't see how that can be interpreted as demoting the guideline? — Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you found consensus for one part of subproposal 8 and not for the other?? I'm only seeing one editor even make a distinction between them in their !vote. I also don't see what subproposal 1 has to do with 8's outcome -- they were on completely different topics with no effect on each other. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Proposal 8 had consensus to change some wording to better identify what the criteria are meant to do. I don't see how that can be interpreted as demoting the guideline? — Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide the clarification requested above with respect to subproposal 8? Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-10
21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
NSPORTS RFC (2)
Apologies for reopening this, but I would like to request a minor clarification - I don't intend to dispute your decision. Is the consensus for subproposal three limited to athletes, or does it extend to other participants such as coaches? BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- For example, WP:NFOOTY; I believe those managers would be covered under proposal #3, but the exact wording of the first paragraph of the close suggests they may not be covered, though the other paragraphs suggest that they are. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal should have given you the link to the push back he is getting to applying the RfC decision to coaches - that discussion is here. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: The discussion focused on athletes who played in events. Whether this applies to coaches and managers needs further discussion, but my hunch would be that participation-based criteria, rather than merit-based criteria are going to be difficult to gain consensus for. — Wug·a·po·des 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Wugapodes. In that case I think we will need an additional RFC for managers, coaches etc, but there is no need to rush into that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: The discussion focused on athletes who played in events. Whether this applies to coaches and managers needs further discussion, but my hunch would be that participation-based criteria, rather than merit-based criteria are going to be difficult to gain consensus for. — Wug·a·po·des 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal should have given you the link to the push back he is getting to applying the RfC decision to coaches - that discussion is here. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, given you closed the RFC, you should be the one to edit WP:NSPORTS to reflect your reading of the consensus. It is entirely inappropriate for any other editor (from any, or no, sides) to do that. GiantSnowman 19:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Giantsnowman: I disagree. The community can and should continue to build consensus on further details not covered in the discussion. Imposing policy wording by closer-fiat is not something that I believe is appropriate for a community-maintained policy. The close gives guidance on community sentiment, and those most knowledgeable about the guideline are best equipped to figure out how to implement it. — Wug·a·po·des 20:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This will result only in edit wars and more disruption as those on both sides argue over semantics and what was meant. What a mealy mouthed reply. You cannot close and then wash your hands of it. GiantSnowman 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edit wars and disruption can be dealt with using the typical tools. You can call it "washing my hands of it", but I call it the normal consensus building process. — Wug·a·po·des 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just had to address an edit war at NSPORTS by fully protecting it for three days. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- sigh guess I was wrong assuming people would be reasonable about this. Thanks Muboshgu for the protection. I'll be home in about an hour and will take a closer look at everything. — Wug·a·po·des 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've opened a close review at AN and the talk page seems to be working for now. I've got to head out again, but I'll be back in a few hours to see if anything has caught fire. — Wug·a·po·des 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think a close review was the right decision to make and hopefully it doesn't result in a restart of the RFC. Any closure of such a divisive RFC would be controversial and I applaud you for volunteering to sort things out. Whatever decision you made would have resulted in pushback, the question now really is about the wording of the closure and how that ushers in implementation of the decision. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The big mistake, I think, is that I was unaware of how divisive this guideline was and didn't expect the consensus process to break down like this. For now I think it's best to let the AN thread develop; if I were to suggest an implementation plan I doubt it would be taken particularly seriously without some confirmation of the close. I think this will need more than just me to unwind, so I hope that the AN review brings more eyes and more clarity to the situation. — Wug·a·po·des 05:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think a close review was the right decision to make and hopefully it doesn't result in a restart of the RFC. Any closure of such a divisive RFC would be controversial and I applaud you for volunteering to sort things out. Whatever decision you made would have resulted in pushback, the question now really is about the wording of the closure and how that ushers in implementation of the decision. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just had to address an edit war at NSPORTS by fully protecting it for three days. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edit wars and disruption can be dealt with using the typical tools. You can call it "washing my hands of it", but I call it the normal consensus building process. — Wug·a·po·des 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This will result only in edit wars and more disruption as those on both sides argue over semantics and what was meant. What a mealy mouthed reply. You cannot close and then wash your hands of it. GiantSnowman 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Subproposal 1, discussion 2.0
- I see there have been objections to your interpretation of this proposal, but you don't really seem to have addressed them (and, anyways, that was a wee bit ago, so now that at least some amount of the dust has settled, it might be time to revisit that). In short, I don't understand how a "no consensus" close can override a clear existing consensus, or the text of the guideline as written (which was not explicitly repealed, and states, quite unequivocally, that
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
. - On top of that, your summary of the discussion, that
The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding
(regarding articles needing to meet GNG), beyond the fact that it shouldn't be saying that (as the previous consensus, that they do, was not repealed) seems inaccurate, or at least focuses on a rather minor point, as the main argument of those who opposed was not that GNG was not required (although there were a few, or some who did not provide a rationale at all), but rather claims that requiring GNG would be a "backdoor to abolishing the SNG" (an argument whose validity is very much questionable, but that doesn't change the fact there probably was no consensus on the specific subproposal, so let's not get bogged down). Looking at the proposal in depth provides hard evidence to back this up. Beyond some additional opposition which is either not at all persuasive (opposing because this "unfairly targets sports" - I hope that's not from the same people complaining this was a trainwreck, because then that would've been even worse) or actually clearly not disagreeing with GNG ("Agree with athletes must demonstrate GNG, but proposal overly bureaucratic"); the vast majority of opposition was not that GNG shouldn't be met (only 3 comments that directly mention this), but that this was a "backdoor way of removing SNGs" (17 comments, by my count). In fact, many of those arguing against didn't argue much but just pointed to Cbl62's comment, which says, rather explicitly,I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution.
So rather clear that GNG (or a slightly less stringent requirement, at least as a temporary measure) must still apply. - In short, you should probably amend your close so as to A) not override an existing consensus which is documented in both previous discussions and in the guideline as written and which was not explicitly overridden; and B) properly summarise that the opposition was very much not about GNG but about a perception (validity of said perception said aside) that this was a "backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether. What do you think of that? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note also that subproposal 11, which advocated for the removal of NSPORT's dependence on GNG (thus implying that such dependence already exists), failed. So the previous consensus wasn't overturned. Avilich (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: I'll try to make my explanation clear, and I'll apologize for what will be a lengthy reply. My argument relies primarily on two sections of WP:Consensus (1) no consensus and (2) consensus can change.The view that "no consensus retains the status quo" is generally correct and useful in structured discussions. The problem here is that the proposal was claimed to be documenting the status quo. That claim is based on the 2017 discussion you linked. While that discussion is helpful, it is not written in stone because consensus can change. For example, the close states that
There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline
, and this is not strictly true. WP:N states in the lead thatA topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)
, and the section WP:SNG references specific guidelines that are substitutes for the GNG. This is a nitpick, of course, but I point it out as an example of how consensus has changed in the last 5 years. For example, the October 2017 version of WP:N has no section on SNGs, it was added later and the lead never changed despite that closure. A 5-year-old discussion is helpful, but what's important is how participants understand policies and their relationship now. So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).So let's return to proposal 1 of the discussion. Supporters argue that it is documenting the status quo by documenting the conclusion of the 2017 discussion. Others argue that it's not the status quo (pointing to, e.g., WP:SNG which was added after the 2017 discussion and contradicts it) or that it shouldn't be the case (e.g., because it will increase systemic bias). These are not frivolous objections, and they cast doubt on the idea that the proposed change is simply a documentation of existing understandings. It helps to think about it from the other direction as well: if we accept the supporters' arguments that this simply documents an existing consensus then we should see robust agreement to implement it. Except we don't. The discussion is better attended than the 2017 discussion, so it's hard to argue it's because of a lack of participation. Opposition references the current version of N, one of our most fundamental guidelines (arguably policy), so it's hard to say it's not policy backed. We get DRVs which uphold closures that interpret SNGs in line with N, so it's hard to say that the interpretation is unreasonable. We got pretty good agreement on proposal 5, so it's hard to say that participants couldn't come to a consensus if they wanted. The central question to consider is: if we take as true the claim that proposal 1 documents the status-quo consensus, why did it struggle to actually achieve consensus?I don't propose to answer that question. I don't think I can, but it points out the issue of "no consensus retains the status quo" in this situation: the discussion cast doubt on what the status quo even is. So I think we all agree that, without consensus for the proposed wording, the existing "should" language is retained for now, but what does it mean? Some people think it equals "must" others think it is more lax than that, and the "status quo" is found in a 5-year-old discussion that's of questionable utility based on this discussion. The best answer I have, and what I tried to articulate in the close, is that there's no consensus on any of this. Right now the community simply hasn't agreed on an answer. There's no consensus to make "should" into "must", but there isn't consensus to outright remove a connection between NSPORTS and GNG. The obvious solution, in my eyes, is to just sidestep the issue and use the existing wording with its usual meaning: "strongly recommended but not strictly required". Subsequent RfCs can clarify this---I think that would be a good idea---but at the moment there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus on this.The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS tells us what we should do in normal situations, but I don't see this as a particularly normal situation. No one seems to agree on what our policies say or what they ought to say. It's attractive to paper-over that disagreement by pointing to some distant past where we did agree, but given my reading of the discussion, I don't think that's an adequate summary of the community sentiment. — Wug·a·po·des 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- Wug, I think you didn't quite get what I was saying. I don't disagree that there's no consensus, but I just think that your reading of the discussion is flawed. Maybe I should have been more concise: most of those opposing did not do so on grounds related to GNG - the main opposition (17 comments out of the slightly above 20 that opposed) was that this was a
"backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether
. Many of them explicitly cited Cbl's !vote, which was itself quite open to having some form of relationship between NSPORTS and GNG. So your reading of the discussion, thatThe ammount of opposition suggests this [n.b. "this" being "the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"] is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome).
, seems inaccurate, as most of the opposition has nothing to do with GNG, with only very few of those opposing the proposal opposing the application of GNG. - I'm also baffled by the "consensus can change" reference, as there are plenty of sections (including the very first sentence) in NSPORTS which make the relationship between GNG and NSPORTS rather explicit, and those were not repealed or amended in any way, so it's hard to see how "consensus has changed" when it simply hasn't.
- I'm also surprised by the reference to one singular DRV which seems to have gone against the prevailing trend, when there are quite a few more which went the other way...
- In short, and the reason why I am objecting to the closing statement for proposal 1 (not the result in itself) is that your close suggests that the relationship between GNG and NSPORTS is in doubt, when most of those opposing the proposal did not comment on that, or explicitly still agreed with the principle that there should be some relationship between GNG and NSPORTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian I explained how I disagree with your reading of those comments:
So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).
The GNG is part of a wider guideline, and its relationship to SNGs is written about other places than just NSPORTS. The relationship between them does need clarified, but I do take the point that that part of the close may lead to interpretations that are more strict than is warranted. — Wug·a·po·des 02:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- With that in mind, consider at least amending this part of your closing statement: I would also point out that "should" (in the guideline) and "must" (in the proposal) are meaningfully distinct. This isn't right, as the guideline also uses the word "must". A significant part of your closing rationale still in fact relies on that idea, and you made a big deal earlier about the difference between "should" and "must". Avilich (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian I explained how I disagree with your reading of those comments:
- Wug, I think you didn't quite get what I was saying. I don't disagree that there's no consensus, but I just think that your reading of the discussion is flawed. Maybe I should have been more concise: most of those opposing did not do so on grounds related to GNG - the main opposition (17 comments out of the slightly above 20 that opposed) was that this was a
- I appreciate these detailed responses. I apologize for the aggressiveness in my earlier comments, and I've tried to tone down the combativeness, but several questions still remain regarding the close reasoning:
- 1. The 2017 RfC was one of many examples of precedent I and others listed demonstrating the consensus NSPORT interpretation. What about the hundreds of recent sportsperson deletions, the dozens of recent AfD and DRV close statements (comprising the overwhelming majority of cases that came down to "GNG vs NSPORT"), and the recent RfCs that tightened SSG criteria expressly because they weren't predicting GNG well enough?
- 2. Can you please explain how the "GNG or SNG" statement at WP:N precludes an SNG from itself ultimately requiring the GNG (or equivalent criteria)?
- a. Why can't an SNG serve as a guide to predicting which subjects are likely to be notable and insist article subjects still meet the SNG's particular overarching definition of "notable" (and "eventually" directly demonstrate meeting this criterion with refs in the article)? WP:N does not claim or mandate that the notability criteria within an SNG (as in, the SSGs in NSPORT) always bypass GNG (like they do in NPROF); WP:SNG implies the opposite, by explicitly mentioning that some SNGs do work outside of GNG. Why would this sentence exist if all SNG criteria were independent of GNG? Furthermore, WP:SNG also specifies
The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic
. How is this not compatible with SNGs "predicting" which subjects are likely to have "appropriate sourcing", and then defining the latter as "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in ISRS"? - b. Why can't the benefit of an SNG be from relaxing initial sourcing requirements such that a GNG-notable subject is allowed in mainspace with just the evidence they meet SNG criteria, under the rebuttable presumption the requisite GNG SIGCOV exists? And maybe with a bit more leeway at AfDs wherein it's generally understood the BEFORE should be more comprehensive than what is expected for other AfD subjects? FYI, fully half of all SNGs operate in this way.
- a. Why can't an SNG serve as a guide to predicting which subjects are likely to be notable and insist article subjects still meet the SNG's particular overarching definition of "notable" (and "eventually" directly demonstrate meeting this criterion with refs in the article)? WP:N does not claim or mandate that the notability criteria within an SNG (as in, the SSGs in NSPORT) always bypass GNG (like they do in NPROF); WP:SNG implies the opposite, by explicitly mentioning that some SNGs do work outside of GNG. Why would this sentence exist if all SNG criteria were independent of GNG? Furthermore, WP:SNG also specifies
- 2. Can you please explain how the "GNG or SNG" statement at WP:N precludes an SNG from itself ultimately requiring the GNG (or equivalent criteria)?
- 3. Why do you assume the oppose !voters who brought up prop 1 "abolishing SNGs" are referring to "abolishing automatic sportsperson notability through SNGs", and not the presumption of notability offered in the above model? Or, even more relevant, maybe they are opposing the actual proposal, which was essentially to advance the deadline for demonstrating the presumed GNG sources indeed exist from a vague "eventually" to "when notability is challenged at AfD" (e.g. when BEFORE has failed)? That's in fact a large part of Cbl62's oppose:
A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG.
...A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc.
- 3. Why do you assume the oppose !voters who brought up prop 1 "abolishing SNGs" are referring to "abolishing automatic sportsperson notability through SNGs", and not the presumption of notability offered in the above model? Or, even more relevant, maybe they are opposing the actual proposal, which was essentially to advance the deadline for demonstrating the presumed GNG sources indeed exist from a vague "eventually" to "when notability is challenged at AfD" (e.g. when BEFORE has failed)? That's in fact a large part of Cbl62's oppose:
Full accounting of !votes
|
---|
|
- Even in this absolute best-case scenario for your claim of "amount of opposition suggests [GNG etc.] is not the consensus", the number of participants directly affirming [GNG etc. consensus] is still higher than those disputing it (21 to 17). Considering this percentage (~55%) was not enough to pass proposal 1 on strictly numerical grounds (i.e. not removing the mistaken opposes or counting the supportive comments), how can you assert it is enough to overturn the [GNG etc.] interpretation, which wasn't even the subject of this proposal?
- 4. Finally, why did you invoke the "failure" of proposal 1 in your justification for failing part of proposal 8, but ignored the very strong opposition to overturning the existing [GNG etc.] consensus put forth in proposal 11 when writing your proposal 1 close? Was this just an oversight where you'd already written prop 1 and forgot what you'd said in it by the time you got to prop 11? JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay (1) Your interpretation isn't unfounded or wrong, but neither is the other side's. These "hundreds" of examples didn't come up in the discussion; there were a handful, mostly brought up by you, but they were largely ignored except by Hut 8.5 who challenged your interpretation of them. In fact, the point I've been making this whole time was made by Hut in a conversation with you
The fact that this is getting so much opposition should be a hint that it's not merely codifying existing accepted practice. If that was the case it wouldn't be controversial.
(2) It doesn't, but some editors think it should. "or" in English is ambiguous between inclusive or and exclusive or. A significant minority of editors believe meeting an SNG should be sufficient, and this is consistent with wider policy. (3) You conveniently leave out parts of Cbl's comment which contradict your interpretation.This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS....imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category.
(emphasis added). I'd suggest that you consider whether you're actually looking at this discussion objectively. To get to your actual question though: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, decisions are not made by voting, and a previous consensus is not an iron law that must be "overturned". Consensus is a statement about the level of agreement in the community at a given time and place, and the community does not agree that the "NSPORTS equals GNG" interpretation is correct. If it was correct, we would have seen your proposal to add such wording pass easily, but it didn't. This was explained to you, directly, in the original discussion. If you want to assert that a particular interpretation has the force of a policy or guideline, you need something stronger than a technicality. (4) Proposal 11 had minimal participation, mostly from people who (continue to) bludgeon the discussion. I ignored proposal 11 because there's no consensus to be found there given the low and biased participation. Perhaps "failure" was too strong, but the point is that using proposal 8 to get around the lack of consensus at proposal 1 is gaming the process. Raising the same point over and over again until opposition tires does not make a great case for consensus (see WP:BLUDGEON). That aspect of proposal 8 was brought up repeatedly in the discussion, and is reflected in the relatively low participation compared to the earlier proposals in the RfC. — Wug·a·po·des 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- Thank you again for your comprehensive response. I will try to keep this brief...
- (1) a)
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".
The former is the status quo ante for NSPORT, the latter was proposal 1, and your quote from Hut 8.5 was strictly concerning opposition to the latter. I cannot stress enough that these should not be conflated! b) That comment was made shortly after sports project editors were canvased through very non-neutral RfC notices, and ultimately it is inapplicable anyway since the sentiment in subsequent weeks was much much more supportive. - (2) I'm familiar with logical operators, thank you. I still do not understand why any weight should be given to the small minority of arguments that relied on both a misinterpretation (or willful misrepresentation) of the "or" in WP:N as being mutually exclusive (despite half of the SNGs actively requiring GNG-equivalent sourcing), and the selective excision of the only text in NSPORT concerning the notability requirements for meriting an article.
- (3) Again,
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now".
The latter is exactly what Cbl62 is objecting to in his comment, it is exactly what many other !voters were opposing, and it also happens to be what the majority of proposal 1 participants !voted for."the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG"
was not the topic of the proposal, and the (minority) opposition to the proposal absolutely does not override the consensus interpretation literally invoked in the overwhelming majority of AfD and DRV closing statements that directly addressed the NSPORT-GNG relationship, or the hundreds of AfDs where an SSG-meeting athlete was uncontroversially deleted. - (4) It doesn't matter that proposal 11 had minimal participation (and 6 support to 14 oppose is hardly "no consensus" or a "slight numerical edge [for opposition]"!). It was a proposal to
Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG
, which directly confirms the accepted NSPORT interpretation was that it is "dependent on the GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- @JoelleJay I don't get the same reading from your exchange with Hut 8.5, and I've previously written on how the order of comments in a discussion is not an accurate tool for assessing consensus. Arguments other than yours are given weight because they are consistent with policy; just because someone has a different reading than you doesn't mean their opinion gets thrown out. Your proposal, quite literally, said
athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD
, so I don't take seriously your assertion now that"the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" was not the topic of the proposal
. 20 people, many of whom bludgeoned discussion for over a month, self-selected from a discussion of nearly 90 is low participation and it's not valid to draw conclusions from it.I don't plan to respond further. I think it's obvious by this point that I disagree with your reading of the discussion and your ability to objectively assess the consensus in that proposal. If your question is "why" I did something, I've explained it to you multiple times, in multiple ways, for a week now. If you think I'm wrong, I've opened a close review where you can try to convince the community of your arguments. — Wug·a·po·des 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- I proposed athletes must demonstrate they meet GNG at AfD; for the third time, as Hut 8.5 said,
There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now"
. A significant proportion of the opposers explicitly acknowledged this difference in their !votes, many more are aware of and recognize that the current guideline requires GNG is met and eventually demonstrated. I don't know how this could be any clearer. I will indeed take this to the closure review. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I proposed athletes must demonstrate they meet GNG at AfD; for the third time, as Hut 8.5 said,
- @JoelleJay I don't get the same reading from your exchange with Hut 8.5, and I've previously written on how the order of comments in a discussion is not an accurate tool for assessing consensus. Arguments other than yours are given weight because they are consistent with policy; just because someone has a different reading than you doesn't mean their opinion gets thrown out. Your proposal, quite literally, said
- Here's my take. I was initially pretty upset with Wug's close of subproposals 5 and 8. After cooling down, I see that Wug gave something to everybody -- a bit of solomonic wisdom. To push for a change of the closing statement on sub 1 would be to tilt the outcome entirely in favor of the anti-sports brigade. I say just leave everything as is and implement subs 3 and 5 and let the Wikiprojects come up with tighter criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cbl, I don't disagree with the result, I just think that the summary of it is quite wrong and could possibly leave an incorrect impression upon some editors... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Question from LinkBeforTime (21:51, 9 March 2022)
Hello, is there an edit tab? Or do I continuously need to suggest...? --LinkBeforTime (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)