Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

"Wikipedia:DfD" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion or Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion.

This forum is for discussion closers to discuss their evaluation of consensus in preparation for closing specific discussions, such as pending XfD, RM, or RfC closes. Any editor who intends to close a discussion, and has concerns about how consensus in that discussion should be assessed is welcome to initiate a discussion here.

Please note that this is not a place to discuss the merits of the underlying matter. It is solely for discussing whether a consensus can be discerned in a discussion, and how the discussion should be closed on the basis of a finding of consensus, or of an absence of consensus. Editors who are involved in discussions of the merits should generally avoid engaging in extensive discussion of how consensus in those discussions should be interpreted.

This is also not a venue for review of discussions that have already been closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Move review or Wikipedia:Deletion review. This forum is also not for requests that a discussion be closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Discoverer of the americas

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.

---

This has been open about a month. There's a clear consensus that the status quo is unacceptable, but it's not clear what to do about it. I'm inclined to close as delete and suggest that the retarget or disambiguate options be worked out through normal editing, but more input is welcome. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, that's an interesting case. Agreed that status quo is not an option, but there's roughly equal support among the alternatives, so a bartender's close is called for. Deleting feels a bit like just kicking the can down the road, since it'd then just be recreated. I was most persuaded by the disambiguate folks, in part since I feel like the multiple possible targets presented is itself an argument for disambiguation, but I'm not sure if that'd be something appropriate for a closer to weigh. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think a close as 'disambiguate' makes sense here, given that there is 1) disagreement between people who !voted 'retarget' as to a proper target and 2) most of the 'delete' voters actually hinge their argument on their not being a clear redirect target, which is exactly what we have disambiguations for. Personally, I don't find the argument that we don't have other 'Discoverer of' redirects/DABs very convincing, particularly as I can find Discoverer of minor circulation and Discoverer of asteroids that do exist on a quick search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is complicated by the structural problem of our having two articles – History of the Americas and Settlement of the Americas – with fairly substantial (though not complete) overlap in coverage, such that it is fairly impossible to choose one or the other as the best target of the phrase. I don't think there is an ambiguity issue here, but an identity issue. If I were closing this, I would take the somewhat more involved route of writing a short WP:DABCONCEPT article at Discovery of the Americas to describe the controversy itself, along the lines of:

The discovery of the Americas refers to the earliest instances in which humans from various origins first saw and set foot on North America and South America, and explored, recorded, or reported the geographic characteristics of these continents. The phrase is controversial because of longstanding disputes as to whether it is appropriate to describe an already-populated region as being "discovered" when it is first encountered by those foreign to that territory, and as to which explorers can be considered the "first" to have discovered the region, when evidence exists of multiple independent discoveries by different explorers. More broadly, the phrase can refer not just to the first instance of discovery, but to the process by which the Americas were explored by persons intentionally seeking to map and describe the continents.

Obviously, some sources would be needed for the propositions that these controversies exist. BD2412 T 14:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Talk:Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Keep? - Merge? - Delete? discussion

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.

---

This discussion has been open for nine days, with tons and tons of editors weighing in, to the point where I'm not sure continuing to leave it open would do much other than use up editorial energy perpetuating the debate. Does anyone want to take a read through it and consider a close? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

People are still commenting, and, unlike AfD, we do not have a fix term for these discussions, so I would just keep it open longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I would leave this open at least until new participation had wound down. This is a discussion complicated by real-world changes in the facts, and in the corresponding scope of the article, during the course of the discussion. If it were to be closed now, however, it looks like there is a consensus to merge. BD2412 T 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and Ymblanter: At this point, I think the discussion can be closed. I see a raw majority favoring a merge, but do not see a clear consensus, but I think it could be closed as "no consensus" with an option to initiate a new discussion on the topic after one or two months. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and closed it as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks; I'm glad we're finally able to get the merge banner off the top of the page (albeit sadly after the pageview bump is over). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

112.ua blacklisting

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.

---

This RfC was raised following this discussion to contest the inclusion of 112.ua on the spam blacklist. The discussion at the RfC itself is split, with a majority favoring keeping it blacklisted, but a minority making valid arguments for its delisting. Normally that would be no consensus and result in the source remaining on the blacklist, but editors also allege that the 112.ua was never properly discussed, having been blacklisted based on the precedent of this disinformation-related RfC and only explicitly mentioned in this other discussion that occurred at roughly the same time as the RfC.

My impression upon reading the relevant discussions is that there was insufficient consensus in prior discussions to justify the addition of 112.ua to the blacklist, and that thus the status quo ante is invalid. The most recent RfC itself does not have the level of consensus necessary to justify blacklisting, and thus I think that the overall result should be that 112.ua be removed from the blacklist, but I'd appreciate a second opinion in case I missed something across the various discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I see that this was archived without being formally closed. I think it is a close call. Opinions appear to be running about 2-to-1 in favor of keeping blacklisted, but some of the support votes are perfunctory in their reasoning. Nevertheless, I wouldn't change the status quo based on the discussion as it is. I would close it as no consensus to restore, and then possibly marshal arguments to initiate a new discussion in another few months. BD2412 T 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I agree with your assessment of the most recent discussion, but I think the issue is that it's unclear what the status quo is; when reading through the prior discussions, it does seem like 112.ua originally got added to the blacklist with basically no actual discussion. Given that, it seems improper to keep it listed in the absence of a consensus that would have justified its addition in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if we say that there was never a proper consensus to blacklist, and unlist it, what is the next step after that? I would think it could then be proposed for blacklisting again, and a proper discussion could ensue. BD2412 T 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the ultimate outcome is going to be about the same either way, the question is just whether to keep it listed or unlist it in the meantime IMO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The default status of websites is that they are not blacklisted, so I would assume that to be the state they should remain in until they are properly blacklisted. BD2412 T 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Template talk:1889 Far West college football independents records#Requested move 9 September 2020

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.

---

My reading of this discussion is that there is consensus for some kind of partial move, but it's not clear what that move is. BD2412 T 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clearer, I read this as consensus to move the titles for 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928 only, and no consensus to move the remaining (pre-1906) titles. BD2412 T 17:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Template:Catalan name

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.

---

I was looking at this one now and was planning to close it, including making a private list of all 39 participants and how I would weigh their contributions, but since I would like to avoid taking this to DRV as a too controversial NAC I came here instead. My planned close was

This discussion has been a controversial one with a lot of participants. Numerically the opposers have a majority, but many of the oppose !votes either misunderstood the proposal, raised abstract concerns about implementation and did not respond to explanations or requests for specific issues with the testcases. These !votes were disregarded or given significantly less weight when determining the consensus. Most of the other opposers argued that the combined template would be harder to use or maintain, was a bad coding practice, or could lead to more confusion. These arguments and variations upon them were considered strong but were fewer in number than !votes supporting consolidation. As this is essentially a question of design philosophy both arguments were considered equally strong resulting in a rough consensus for the merger.

Does this close look fine? --Trialpears (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I was previously musing how I would close it if I were going to (I'm not, since I'm involved in the first part, so I decided to lean in with a comment/vote instead), since it's quite an interesting case, and my thoughts were mostly as you wrote. Disclaimer of involvement being made, I saw the opposes grouped into ~3/4 categories (your statement addresses most of them). The only other real type of oppose was David Eppstein's, which received a few "per David" opposes. I think this one gets weighed less due to numerical reasons; the first part already created a strong (argument and numerical) consensus for the general idea of consolidating these hatnote templates in that way (the "Asian templates" were excluded solely for technical reasons). So for a new "this isn't how hatnotes should be treat" argument to prevail, in contradiction to already-established recent decision to consolidate, it'd need at least ~ equal consensus to overturn, which I don't see here. And in such a case it'd beg the question of what to do with the first set of merges. Whether this is worth mentioning in the close is a different matter. All in all, I think that's a good close as it is already written, but (again) take my words with a grain of salt. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the close is an adequate summary of the discussion and reaches the correct conclusion. In terms of how to improve it, I would point out the previous TFD. In that prior discussion, editors seemed to be fine with the general idea of merging, but had concerns about the implementation for some templates. Having further refined the meta-template after the first TFD, we're now having a second TFD to determine whether the revised implementation is good enough to continue the process started in the first TFD. Among those who considered that question, the consensus seems to be yes (near-unanimously after the spurious and factually incorrect !votes are disregarded). All that remains now is David's opinion and similar arguments. I think those address a different (but still valid) question: should we be merging name hatnotes at all. The previous answer from the first TFD was yes, and I don't think this discussion demonstrates that the answer has changed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I gave !votes echoing Davids concerns full weight as they are good faith and raise reasonable concerns. I don't believe the last discussion can be taken as a general consensus that all name hatnotes should be merged, just that those specific ones under discussion should and don't think it's suitable to give !votes less weight because of the previous discussion. The meta template is now significantly more complex and it can reasonably be argued that merging the simplest ones was the right choice but not more complex ones. Regardless of how exactly the !votes should be weighed (it doesn't affect the close in this case) I've added a line about the last discussion and closed it. --Trialpears (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_16#Template:Composer_sidebar

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.

---

Controversial one, and I now realise this is related to the so-called infobox wars. It proposes the deletion of Template:Composer sidebar and all of its transclusions. 3 batches of transclusions previously deleted, two closed by me, but about half of them for the rationale of unused, so take with grain of salt. Also applicable is WP:NAVBOX, the CENT-advertised sidebars in lead discussion, and tangentially ArbCom on general IB discussions. Also relevant is general TfD precedent against psuedo-infoboxes, for reasons such as the fact that they don't display on mobiles, accessibility concerns, etc.

My current reading as follows: tally is 5 keep, 6 delete. Reading arguments, and noting precedent, my current reading is consensus to delete this template (which is a psuedo-infobox), but for its transclusions there is no consensus on whether there should be a sidebar remaining afterwards, noting that multiple delete arguments aren't against a sidebar but against a psuedo-infobox. Such a close would require transclusion templates to be converted to regular sidebar usages, so the end result would look like a normal infobox (with the image and other labels), and a sidebar for navigation below. The sidebars may be renominated individually to be discussed, and the weighting of such a discussion would be impacted by the CENT discussion linked above. However, I also see a no consensus close as feasible (albeit unhelpful), and we can also wait for the CENT discussion to close which will possibly result in discouragement of sidebars in leads, which would add weight to the delete votes and perhaps result in a delete all close.

Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look. BD2412 T 18:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have had a look. My thinking on this is that the deletion of a template in relatively wide use should require a relatively clear consensus. To the extent that this discussion can be characterized as having a consensus, it seems to be very narrow one. If I were closing this discussion, I would close it as there being no clear consensus for the deletion of the templates, and I would further suggest taking up Robert Allen's suggestion of first attempting to address usage on more of a page-by-page basis, or perhaps a composer-by-composer basis, and revisit the template as a whole once that effort has progressed to a useful degree. This is just my interpretation of the discussion, and you are certainly free to disagree! BD2412 T 18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I think that's quite reasonable, BD! I see your point that a template with such wide usage, and (if I may add) a controversial history, should have a clearer consensus for deletion or, as my original reading was leaning towards, conversion. I have closed the discussion as no consensus, using a mixture of these thoughts. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Now at DRV, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that it would have ended up there no matter how it was closed. BD2412 T 07:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Talk:Mario Ortiz Ruiz#Requested move 6 November 2020

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.

---

There is a clear consensus to rename the articles, but a hangup over whether the new titles should reflect the dates of birth of the subjects, or their nationality. I am inclined to close it with a move to titles including nationality, but closing either way will disappoint half of the participants in the original discussion, so I would welcome other opinions. BD2412 T 19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891, ProcrastinatingReader, Rosguill, Sdkb, Trialpears, Wugapodes, and Ymblanter: - pinging past discussion participants. Feel free to ignore (or respond). BD2412 T 00:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I endorse your approach. The discussion is essentially a wash, and nationality has a narrow edge. To further weaken the YOB camp's standing, the argument that nationality fluid in professional football is less relevant in this particular case, as both Mario Ortizes appear to have exclusively played for clubs their birth country. If this were already at YOB disambiguators I would probably close as no consensus, but given that the status quo is obviously inferior, we shouldn't let perfect get in the way of an improvement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The same thought occurred to me about nationality disambiguators for these subjects, but it can raise some hackles when a closer notes in closing a flaw in an argument that was not raised by other participants in the discussion. However, it is heartening that you also noticed that. BD2412 T 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think closing as you suggest is the only correct option. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) is a guideline and says in 2a If the footballers have different nationalities, use their nationality in the disambiguation. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Disambiguating is also a guideline and similarly says Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators. Participants showed that the project-wide consensus is to prefer nationality over YOB when disambiguating, and while there may be an editing consensus at WP:FOOTBALL to prefer YOB, per WP:LOCALCON we need to weigh the project-wide guidance more heavily than WikiProject style guides. As you said, there's consensus to move, so you have some discretion, and given the P&Gs discussed, it seems community consensus is that you should prefer nationality over YOB when exercising that discretion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, pursuant to the evaluations above, I am comfortable closing the discussion as proposed now. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Requested_move_29_November_2020

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.

---

Okay, this is a funny one. This follows Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war/Archive_14#Proposal:_Rename_to_"2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_War" closed by Wugapodes with what appears to be quite a weighted-by-arguments close.

By raw votes, support votes have an approximate 2/3 majority. To summarise arguments, by my initial reading:

• Support
  1. Due to the title of First Nagorno-Karabakh War saying First, implies a "Second" / WP:TITLECON
  2. This is the second war / This war relates to the first war
  3. Per nom [nom is somewhat iffy, so I'm inclined to treat these as weak votes] / per my reasoning in the previous discussion / per others / no substantative rationale -- the majority of votes
• Oppose
  1. No evidence given of RS using this term / name is OR / not commonly used in RS (w/ evidence)
  2. OSE arguments by supporters / First Nagorno-Karabakh War was a bad move
  3. [one argument:] This isn't really the "second war", and the first wasn't really the "first"
  4. Wait for sources

Whilst supporters have the numerical majority, I find many of their arguments wholly unconvincing with no basis in policy, notable lack of links or references to reliable sources, and mostly lacking in any other evidence. Meanwhile, opposers seemed to have arguments with a sounder basis in PAGs. On the "per my reasoning in prev discussion" arguments, I haven't read the Wugapodes discussion aside from the close, but the close makes me think Wugapodes was not convinced those arguments had much of a basis in policy. For these reasons I'm leaning towards no consensus here, but I'd like to grab some thoughts as this close would go against the numerical vote quite a bit. Cheers, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly a close against the majority, so dust off your flak jacket. Since I was pinged, I want to point out that in the last RM. it wasn't that I wasn't convinced by the arguments, per se, but that opposers pointed to project wide consensus on what to do and supporters advocated ignoring it and/or doing their own thing. There's quite obviously a local consensus that editors working on the page would like it retitled, but that local consensus is not well motivated by policy. Per WP:CONLEVEL we've generally got to side with the project-wide consensus in that situation. Getting back to this discussion, the most compelling framing of the support argument is essentially "let's be consistent with the companion article". Now, consistency is part of the article naming criteria, but it is the least important of them also. While already on weak footing, the opposition raises concerns that the other article should never have been moved in the first place (and it seems the reasoning is more substantial than just sour grapes), so taken on its own turf that consistency argument faces a serious challenge. Even if we say--for the sake of analysis--that supporters have the stronger argument on consistency, the opposition raises a second challenge that goes largely unrebutted: OR and RS. Those are two policies with some of the widest consensus, and so per CONLEVEL those in favor of moving needed to show that the title is not unacceptable synthesis and has been used in reliable sources. That didn't happen, in the first or second move request, which makes me suspicious it will happen in a third move request. Personally, I'd close as consensus against in order to head off a third RM on the same issue, but given the numbers that's definitely the harder route. Regardless of whether it's framed as consensus against or no consensus, I think your reasoning and the ultimate result are correct. I'd suggest writing the close so that (1) it gives article regulars a realistic view of how future discussions will shake out given these two discussions and (2) it's as clear as possible to avoid wasting your time at move review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wug, I agree with these thoughts. On your final point, controversial non-admin closes tend to be questioned more ime so I suspect there’s a decent chance it’ll end up at move review regardless if I close it, and consensus against would be very difficult to pull off indeed. Hence, if you or another admin reading this wishes to close that’s okay with me, as you’ll probably have more lee-way with your words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying we aren't a completely egalitarian project??? I'd say be bold and make the close anyway. Sure, it will probably be challenged, but as long as you write up what you said here and take care to frame it well, I really doubt it would be overturned. I see challenges as just something to plan for rather than avoid; put another way, you avoid close challenges by writing as if it were already challenged. A close is in the meatball:WikiNow, and so the summary and result should be obviously correct to anyone reading the discussion regardless of whether you are there to explain it or not (c.f. with the motivations for textualism and New Criticism). If someone asks you specifically to comment on something, answer as best you can, but don't get sucked into explaining every detail. If you feel the need to explain something, it should have been in the close. If it's not in the close, it should be self evident to anyone reading the discussion. IMO that's why non-admin closes are more likely to be challenged or overturned. Obviously social capital is important to making a close stick, but more often than not I think it's an issue of drafting: the close isn't self contained. Important discussion points get missed (angering that faction), assumptions are left unsaid (resulting in good or bad faith misunderstandings), or dicta gets made that (while probably helpful) prejudices some faction into viewing an otherwise reasonable close as a SUPERVOTE. This is where social capital becomes useful because we need to mobilize human resources to resolve the tension that the close was supposed to resolve. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent, check out User:Wugapodes/Non-sysop closures if you want more meta-analysis. Moral of the story: you don't need the delete button to do a good job here. I dislike WP:NAC because the only people it discourages are the ones with circumspection which ironically are the exact people we want closing. You have everything you need and essentially already wrote the first draft in the OP. Remember I never said you couldn't pull it off, just that it would take more work on your end. You can certainly do it, and in fact I encourage it: you'll do a good job. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay!  Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm involved in this discussion, but I'll note that if this is not closed in favor of the move, it would probably be helpful to suggest next steps for reconciling the two articles' titles as part of the close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I belatedly agree with the analysis offered by Wugapodes. This was a well-thought and conscientious close. I do think that it is the type of discussion that is likely to go to WP:MR no matter which direction the close goes, but it cannot be said to have merely been an effort at counting heads, or a supervote failing to account for arguments. BD2412 T 07:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Talk:Autonomous social center#Requested move 10 November 2020

I am inclined to close this as consensus to move, and furthermore to change "center" to "centre" on the basis that sub-articles in two countries predominately using "centre" outweighs the U.S. use of "center". My feeling is that the longwinded argument demonstrates that either title is permissible, and the length of argument against the move does not override the numerical consensus favoring the move. BD2412 T 17:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that there's consensus to move. Not sure about "centre" v "center". The logic seems sound, although some folks love to debate ENGVAR so it may depend on if there's a discernible format in the discussion already and how many may object. In the 2019 discussion someone said "Center" should not be switched to "centre" without a very good reason. Granted WP:CONSISTENT is a thing, and (as you mention) Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom and Self-managed social centres in Italy use the "centre" format. Imo a close either way on that could be justified. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is probably best if I just close as proposed by the original proposer, and leave the center/centre distinction for another discussion. BD2412 T 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has now been closed per the above. BD2412 T 07:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone still here?

This was a cool idea. I will post stuff here, if there's anyone actually watching it. jp×g 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I found that it filled a useful feature when I used it in October, but the usecases are quite rare (for me at least). Happy to comment here if I have something to contribute with. --Trialpears (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG and Trialpears: I will make a New Year's resolution to keep a better eye on this board, and direct editors here as needed. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Same. jp×g 04:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

People didn't know about the page. I have navigationally connected it to other pages in some fashion (diff), so maybe it will see more activity. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I linked here from ANRFC. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I still watch the page, but as Trialpears mentioned, the use case is somewhat rare. In my experience, this board is targeted more towards newer closers looking for feedback on reading consensus in complex discussions. Another issue that Alalch fixed is that it wasn't well known outside the initial trial group, so once they gained skills in reading consensus, there were fewer posts. I think more dedicated efforts to direct interested editors here would be a positive, and maybe help reduce the backlog at Closure requests if editors know they can get guidance before being dragged to AN for a close review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikileaks RfC

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_345#RfC:_WikiLeaks

Pinging some recent posters and some people that have closed tough RSN discussions: @BD2412, Trialpears, Rosguill, Primefac, Wugapodes, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.

Wondering if I can get some thoughts on this discussion? It's quite split between option 1/2 and 4, with likely a numerical majority for the former (I haven't counted the numbers exactly), however reading the arguments tells a more unified picture. I think the diversity in whether people chose 1/2 or 4 depended on which angle people approached the question.

My reading is that there seems to be agreement that Wikileaks is reliable in the sense that it doesn't make up documents and has a process to verify the authenticity of the documents. For example: if it publishes a stash of documents where the purported author is the Chinese government, those documents could be cited as if they were accessed from a Chinese government website. This, of course, makes them primary sources, which comes onto the concerns of option 4 voters; that these documents cannot be used as reliable sources.

Where it gets more weird is when you consider the nature of Wikileaks. Some participants noted that Wikileaks is more like Dropbox or Scribd than a 'news source'. Except it can't be compared by analogy to either of those since it isn't a hosting service for other peoples' uploads, it publishes a very specific scope of documents and it does vetting for the authenticity of the documents. Some users compared it to a self-published source such as YouTube (or Twitter), but it's not quite comparable to that either. Hence, even if the conclusion in my last paragraph is the consensus, I feel like it's largely unhelpful/useless to only say that, particularly without giving an example of when the source can be used. And on that note, I'm having a tough time thinking of when a classified leaked government document could actually be used as per WP:PRIMARY, which I think largely comes to the option 4 concerns.

Posting this here since a lot of different relevant policies were quoted by users, and I think the nature of Wikileaks is quite unique such that it doesn't fit into any box easily, which I think makes this a difficult close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the thread in detail, but my sense is that the primary nature of the source makes a reliability discussion somewhat moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, really. Some folks are saying that courts have used their documents and that they have a vetting process. Others have said there is no vetting but I don't see them rebutting the claims of vetting and others cite security experts and dodgy connections of Assange. Some folks have raised concerns that Wikileaks isn't so much a source as much as a platform where documents sourced to others are put on. I am not so sure that I would want to close this, it feels like "Wikileaks is the source" is an implicit premise of the RfC and I don't see agreement on that point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me as a reaffirmation of WP:PRIMARY. I think there's no consensus on whether WikiLeaks counts as "reliably published" for purposes of that policy, but I only skimmed. Essentially, it is fine to use documents published by WikiLeaks for straightforward, factual statements about the claims made in the document, but any analysis, interpretation, synthesis, or evaluation must be cited to secondary sources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a co-closer

Assuming this board isn't dead and posting here...

I'm thinking about closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discord logs. I'd like for a person (preferably one without a Discord account) to co-close it with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Sorry for the long lapse. This board will be revived. BD2412 T 04:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: o7 –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sanity check on an WP:NCRET close

Resolved

Hey, let's see if anyone's still paying attention to this board.

So Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 § Getting wet is a bit of a mess. With 12 !voters, the most support any one position is able to command is 4 for "Get Wet", but there's two explicit oppose !votes against that, so that's 4 for, 2 explicitly against, 6 implicitly neutral/against, definitely not a consensus.

Sometimes these kinds of thing result in no consensus, default to delete. If that's the right call here, I'll just wait for an admin to come along and close. But having thought about this a bit, deletion would also go against the preference of 9 out of 12 !voters (there's 2 delete and 1 second-choice delete), and there's one thing that no one's explicitly opposed, and 1 editor has spoken generally in favor of without outright endorsing, which is redirecting to wikt:get wet. Thus, I think the fairest close would be no consensus, default Wiktionary redirect.

My reading of WP:NCRET is that this is within my discretion as closer, but I'm wary of this coming off as a supervote, so I'd appreciate feedback here. Courtesy pings @MJL, BD2412, JPxG, Trialpears, Wugapodes, and ProcrastinatingReader as repeat past participants here. (Would ping Rosguill, the only past participant I can see with significant RfD experience, but this happens to be their nom.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• If it were up to me, I would find that the dissension in the discussion indicates that the term is clearly ambiguous, and create a disambiguation page at Getting wet, with the disambiguation terms being Vaginal lubrication, Moisture, and Wetting, and a cross-referencing "see also" to Get Wet (disambiguation). I would not in the close that editors who think that "Getting wet" and "Get Wet" are too close to have separate disambiguation pages are free to propose a merge of those pages, and gain consensus for that step. BD2412 T 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think there's no consensus to retarget to "Get Wet" or to "Wet", particularly given the argument about the irrelevance of some entries. There's no consensus to delete. There's no consensus to keep as-is. So a dab page is likely the solution most would find acceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BD2412 and ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks. That's a good point about DABbing, a possibility I hadn't given enough thought to. That's what I've gone with, also noting a few other potential next steps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)