User talk:Why? I Ask
|
||||
Go check out the hatchet job someone has done to the table there. I’m not in the mood to argue with them anymore.
Happy New Year! 😂 Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is a consensus for updating criterion 5 and 6 of the guideline. I'm working on a draft here. Feel free to suggest changes. I'm going to bring it forward for discussion soon.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've opened the discussion, if you'd like to participate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
"WP:TVTROPES" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect WP:TVTROPES to the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 19 § WP:TVTROPES until a consensus is reached. 67.209.130.107 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like you to review your close for the Gulf of America redirect discussion. I don't think you sufficiently took into account the change in the discussion made after the executive order was given, and the argument that the average user would, in fact, be looking for the Gulf of Mexico (or the renaming issue). StAnselm (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: Recent users certainly would be looking for the Gulf of Mexico renaming, but remember WP:RECENTISM. As several other users mentioned in the discussion, it was the name of a bay in Russia for a hundred years and that name still occasionally appears in some sources. It is still the main result when searching Google Books or Google Scholar. As for why I closed it as a disambiguation as opposed to just adding a hatnote to the Gulf of Mexico or vice-versa, it is because there was no clear consensus for that. It was a mix of stare decisis (the disambiguation page was already in use before I closed) since no full consensus could be formed at the time and the fact that it was was the best compromise (as other users pointed out). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a big stretch to call the disambiguation page "in use" before you closed - it was created just a couple of hours before. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, of course, but in any case it's hard to see how it applies to redirects - which are really focused on what people are searching for. And really, your "serves as an equally valid search term" comment in the close does sound like a supervote. StAnselm (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not a supervote, that is me summarizing the 15+ votes that said it was. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the first person who mentioned Nakhodka Bay initially suggested redirecting there and then struck the !vote in favor of keep, explicitly rejecting the idea of a disambiguation page. The vast majority of people suggesting it as a search term commented before the executive order - which was my initial point, that you did not adequately discern the direction the discussion was going. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically this only boils down to the debate over which is the primary topic (if there even is a definitive one). It really is a debate of historicity versus current relevance. If you think that the Gulf of Mexico rename should be the primary topic over the Nakhodka Bay, then I would start a discussion on one of those pages or the aforementioned disambiguation page. Personally, I would wait a month or so. As I said, the current scholarly sources over the past 200 years support the Nakhodka Bay; the current news cycle and the federal executive office support the Gulf of Mexico. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the first person who mentioned Nakhodka Bay initially suggested redirecting there and then struck the !vote in favor of keep, explicitly rejecting the idea of a disambiguation page. The vast majority of people suggesting it as a search term commented before the executive order - which was my initial point, that you did not adequately discern the direction the discussion was going. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not a supervote, that is me summarizing the 15+ votes that said it was. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a big stretch to call the disambiguation page "in use" before you closed - it was created just a couple of hours before. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, of course, but in any case it's hard to see how it applies to redirects - which are really focused on what people are searching for. And really, your "serves as an equally valid search term" comment in the close does sound like a supervote. StAnselm (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with StAnselm. "Keep" had a clear majority, so I'm confused as to where disambiguate comes from.
- @Why? I Ask perhaps you thought the previous state was a disambiguation? The status quo was not a disambiguation but a direct redirect so that's what any "keep" close should reflect. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there were equally as many people that opposed the redirect or supported a disambiguation page. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- At RfD, "keep" and "disambiguate" are mutually exclusive opinions. J947 ‡ edits 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- No duh. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- At RfD, "keep" and "disambiguate" are mutually exclusive opinions. J947 ‡ edits 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because there were equally as many people that opposed the redirect or supported a disambiguation page. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)