User talk:Anne drew/Archives/2018/February

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anne drew. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Relook a RFC close

I would ask you to relook this: Talk:Trump–Russia dossier/Archive 6#RFC on lead . Is this really no consensus or is it a consensus not to include. Casprings (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The result is effectively the same, but you're right, "consensus against including" is more precise than "no consensus to include". Closing statement has been updated. AdA&D ★ 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Youth in Asia

Want to edit Youth in Asia in a similar way as your DYK nomination, Youth in Africa? Vanguard10 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Youth in Africa

On 19 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Youth in Africa, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Africa's large population of youths and children makes it the youngest continent, with 60% of residents younger than twenty-five? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Youth in Africa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Headings change

Re [1]

When you find something like that changed, it makes sense to make an effort to determine the rationale before changing it back. If you don't know the rationale, as your edit summary said, how do you know it wasn't a good rationale? "I don't know why" is never a good reason to reverse another editor's change. That would have been very easy in this case—the answer occurred 13 edits earlier, here.

The rationale is that many editors use the page history to determine recent activity in talk spaces, and it helps to know which "Survey" or "Discussion" is being commented in. There is only one each at this moment but, if you wait until "disambiguation" is actually needed, some editors complain that you changed the heading they were used to seeing in the page history.

I don't see how Survey: Nikolas Cruz heading is less neutral than RFC about the heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz, but would Survey about the heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz be an improvement in your view? I would have used that instead but I thought it would be a bit lengthy for the page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly you may change it back. I don’t feel like explaining why headings in an rfc should be neutral shouldn’t contain one of the options of said rfc. AdA&D ★ 05:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)