No response for a while. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 19:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello, this message is regarding your decision on March 15 to close the deletion discussion for the article on Renee Hoyos by converting the article into a redirect to the 2020 Tennessee election results. I understand that the discussion did not end with a clear consensus to retain the article, but I am not sure I understand the policy-based reasoning of the decision to redirect it. The argument used by the person who began the discussion and which was supported by others in that discussion were "We don't host articles on politicians who only run for election but who don't hold office", citing the subject-specific guideline on politicians which says as much. The only [weak] "Keep" vote came from another editor who pointed out her notability as an environmentalist.
Hoyos was recently (just days ago) appointed as director of an environmental justice program in Virginia as a result of a 4th Circuit Court decison requiring Virginia to address its environmental justice issues with greater seriousness (this was not a routine appointment, the entire department was created because the 4th Circuit said Virginia had to act). I attempted to restore the article on Hoyos to an earlier pre-redirect state and added this new reference as further evidence of her notability outside of politics, but was quickly undone by another editor, citing the closure of the deletion discussion of her as a losing politician.
Here is my concern: the article was converted into a redirect because of an argument that she was not notable as a politician (because she did not win the election in which she competed). My argument is that it looks like she would likely be considered notable if her political involvements were removed from the article altogether-- there are enough references, including this most recent one, to qualify her as notable per WP:BASIC or per WP:GNG. Her involvement with politics, however, seems to have caused her to be labeled as decidedly non-notable because she was not notable as a politician. Would you agree that if her political history were removed from the article (i.e., if she were no longer classified as a politician), that she would likely qualify as notable on other grounds? If so, how would you feel if I restored the article and removed the political portions of it, leaving only the coverage of her as a non-politician (i.e., as an environmental activist)? The article would be much shorter, but it would still include discussion of her in multiple reliable verifiable independent sources. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. YoYoHa588 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YoYoHa588:OnWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Hoyos (2nd nomination), I think the reason why notability guidelines other than WP:NPOL was not mentioned because the participants consider it the most likely way for the subject to be notable, so they do not feel the need to mention other ways of meeting notability. Presumably, with that many experienced participants, some should have considered other notability guidelines. (Actually in Bearcat's statement, "(a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her a Wikipedia article regardless of her victory or defeat in the election" is an implict way of saying the subject does not meet other notability guidelines.)
? The article seems to be a blog of the news publisher.
~ The coverage is only slightly removed from a trivial mention.
?Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Overall, there does not seem to have enough sources to meet WP:GNG or enough combined coverage to meet WP:BASIC. You are welcome to seek the opinions of other editors, however. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Dead Water". MemphisFlyer. Archived from the original on 2020-10-24. Retrieved 2021-04-25.
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.
Continued discussion
Hello, Aseleste, I saw your message above. I have found another recent news article about Hoyos' appointment: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/2021/05/03/renee-hoyos-now-heading-virginia-environmental-office/7408748002/?gnt-cfr=1 The article is specifically about her, and she is its main topic. What do you think? There is a paywall to access the full article, but the first couple of paragraphs are available for free. It is listed in the newspaper's "opinion" section, but the facts it gives about her are not opinions, and it looks to me like further evidence of her non-political (and ongoing) notability. My guess is that there will also soon be articles in Virginia newspapers as well, and if there were an article on her, these could be added on a rolling basis. YoYoHa588 (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YoYoHa588: Since you said the subject have ongoing coverage, it would be reasonable to wait for a bit longer. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping thread for 10 days. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't know what that means... I think it means you are willing to wait 10 more days for more news to develop. That might or might happen, does it matter? But anyhow, while I'm here, I have a question: is it the purpose of the subject-specific notability guidelines (like WP:NPOL) to include topics which might not at first glance appear to meet the general notability guidelines, or are they meant to exclude topics which do meet the GNG but that don't appear to meet those subject-specific guidelines? Because I am pretty sure it's the former, but? YoYoHa588 (talk)
@YoYoHa588: Bumping just keeps this section from being archived and does not mean how long I am willing to wait. You are welcome to start a new section if this section gets archived. In the meantime, you could start a draft on Draft:Renee Hoyos and add sources as they appear.
For your second question, neither GNG nor SNG are exclusionary. The exclusionary guideline is NOT. Usually, meeting GNG or any SNG is sufficient. Sometimes, !voters reject meeting an SNG only as sufficient, but that is not a can of worms I want to open here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping thread for 14 days. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello,
On 23 April 2021 you closed the move request on the article Video game piracy. I disagree with your closure. The people opposing it, in my opinion, did not give sufficient reasoning as to why it should not be moved. They also did not answer questions I asked regarding their comments. Please can you explain why you closed it when the discussion was ongoing? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Also, the common name policy states this: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." I feel like this should be taken into consideration regarding the name of this article, and other articles which use the word "piracy" in this way. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the slow response, this took some time to write.)@DesertPipeline: The criteria for titles are wp:criteria. The arguments in the discussion were:
The arguments for not moving were stronger so I closed the discussion as not moved. Even if this were closed as no consensus, the title would have stayed at Video game piracy as it is the stable title per wp:threeoutcomes.
As for whether the discussion is ongoing, it seem unlikely since the last question was asked six days before the closure without a response. They are not obligated to response. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for not moving
Common name – It is the common name, but as the common name policy says, inaccurate names "are often avoided". "Piracy" is most certainly an inaccurate name because it was invented by publishers who disapproved of this copying to smear people who did it by equating their actions with something actually harmful.
Concise – It is 'concise', but it's also wrong. Sometimes it isn't possible to explain something 'concisely' and be correct, as is the case here. While "Unauthorized distribution of video games" (although I now favour "copying" rather than "distribution") is more complex than "Video game piracy", it actually describes the topic rather than being a point-of-view term that has been heavily pushed on people, and due to that pushing has been accepted as okay when it's not.
Not a POV title – The arguments given for it not being a POV title aren't accurate. Andrewa argued that because people who copy games without authorisation use the term themselves, it is somehow not a point-of-view term. I am really not sure how they came to that conclusion. It shouldn't be surprising that people who copy games without authorisation use the term too – it's been heavily pushed, as previously stated. When all of the business-people are using the term as if it's legitimate, it's not surprising that the public will be fooled into believing it is legitimate. Waxworker says "There also isn't sufficent sources saying that 'piracy' is generally regarded as a smear word.", but https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy is a source for opposition to the term, and links to a court case where a US judge refused to allow the uses of the words "piracy" and "theft" in a copyright infringement case.
In conclusion, I don't think the arguments of those who opposed the move are actually valid. Would you say my analysis is fair? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DesertPipeline: For common name, there is neither agreement nor disagreement by others in the discussion whether the name is inaccurate, so there is at most weak support for the inaccuracy of the name, if any. Therefore, while I cannot exclude the argument, I also cannot give it full weight. The "often avoided" wording does allow for exceptions, so it does not completely invalidate the arguments by others even if the name is inaccurate (downweighing is considerable, but that depends on whether the name is accurate according to consensus).
For conciseness, the argument against conciseness presented here depends on the accuracy and neutrality of the name.
For neutrality, Andrewa's argument is intend to counter that "piracy" has a negative implication. As far as I can see, "piracy" has a negative implication is the only reason for POV of the title, so unless there other reasons raised in the discussion that I missed, Andrewa's argument is fine. While it would be ideal that Waxworker provide some evidence for "'piracy' is generally regarded as a smear word", providing two sources that say "piracy" is a smear word is not an ideal evidence as well – beware of cherry picking. Therefore, I cannot give either arguments more weight over the other one.
Opinion: You mentioned that the term is being pushed heavily. For Wikipedia's purposes, it does not matter as Wikipedia is not supposed to right great wrongs. If someday somebody somehow pushed the idea of flat Earth to most people – Wikipedia itself would not resist the pushing. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The negative implication of "piracy" in this context is it's comparing the act of copying with acts by actual pirates – as in, violence.
Regarding "if it was being heavily pushed that Earth was flat, we'd go along with it", would we? We know for a fact that Earth isn't flat, because we have direct evidence of it. We also have evidence that copying does not involve attacking ships.
While Wikipedia should not right great wrongs, to not use a non-neutral word or term for something isn't righting great wrongs – it's simply not making things worse. By using the word "piracy" in this context, Wikipedia is agreeing with a point-of-view. That's a big problem, and it needs to be solved. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DesertPipeline: When closing discussions, the closer is not supposed to insert their opinion, so the opinion part of my message is irrelevant for the purposes of determining a consensus. Otherwise I should have !voted. Since closing discussions should not involve my opinion, it would be counter-productive to debate whether using "piracy" is POV here for the purposes of determining whether the close is correct.
Thank you for the link to move review; I was already aware of it, but the close template states that it's best to discuss the closure with the closer before going to move review. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Redirect Ninja
For your work on Wikipedia:Articles for Creation/Redirects and Categories.
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.
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.
It appears that in moving Armenian Question, you didn't leave a redirect for the talk page. This breaks links to the move discussion and such. I'll fix. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I must have broken the dialog for creating a talk redirect while using pageswap probably because the tab was out of focus. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
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.
Pagalavathii
Hi Asselete,
I want to change pagalavathii draft page to article page. How do I change as article page can you help me please. Swetha varshini (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Thalapathy 67 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Thalapathy is Vijay's 'nome de guerre'. Thalapathy 65 is the code name given to the movie which is undergoing filming now and Thalapathy 66 is the name given to the movie which has been supposedly greenlit by the actor to start filming next year. Thalapathy 67 is a movie that may start filming after 2 years after the ongoing movies finish. Creating a redirect page for a movie in the distant future to the actor's article page is pointless. We can go on for Thalapathy 68, 69 and 70 if that is the case
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JupitusSmart 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(deleted) I do not agree that R3 applies to this case since the deletion criteria applies to "implausible typos or misnomers" and not related topics, and the redirect has been created for 18 days, which is borderline "recently created". However, there is a pervious RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Thalapathy 67) which I have missed while working on WP:AfC/R, so this could be plausibly deleted under G4. Per Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I will let it be.
Next time I should check the deletion log before using the User:Enterprisey/AFCRHS script to create redirects. A fine opportunity for learning :). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 21
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
FoldArchives collapses archived talk page threads in order to reduce screen space
GoToTitle converts the page title into an input field for navigating to other pages
UserHighlighter adds highlighting to links to the userpages, talk pages, and contributions of administrators and other user groups as well as tooltips to indicate which groups a user is in
filterDiff: Adds a "Show changes" button to the filter editor.
filterNotes: Parses filter notes as wikitext (so links are clickable), and signs and dates new comments for you.
filterTest: Adds a "Test changes" button. Opens Special:AbuseFilter/test with what's currently in the edit form, not with what's saved in the database, so you don't have to copy-paste your changes.
Twinkle has a number of improvements, including that most watchlist defaults now make use of the new temporary watchlist feature. Other changes include rollbacks treating consecutive IPv6 editors in the same /64 range as the same user, adding a preview for shared IP tagging, a preference for watching users after CSD notification, and for sysops, the ability to block the /64 and link to a WP:RfPP request, and new copyright blocks default to indefinite.
Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper now v3.4.17, changes include minor fixes and preventing edits that don't change the description.
Joeytje50's JWB now version 4.1.0, includes the ability to generate page lists from the search tool, major updates to the handling of regular expressions, the storing of user settings, the addition of upload protection, and an option to skip pages that belong to a specific category, among other changes. See User:Joeytje50/JWB/Changelog for a full list of recent changes.
Wikipedia:User scripts/List has been revamped to make it easier to find scripts suited for your needs. If you know of a cool script that is missing on the list, or a script on the list that is no longer working, please edit the list or let us know on the talk page.
My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts. Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I paste {{subst:Load user script|User:Aseleste/Scripts/Purger.js}} on to my .js page, I get an error message about the "subst" part. Is this code correct? LizRead!Talk! 19:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations are not wp:independent since they come from the subject.
Bumping thread for 10 days. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
