User talk:Red-tailed hawk

List of Neverwinter Nights characters RfD

You closed this as no consensus. I don't think that is correct. The discussion clearly reached a policy based consensus and the early rush of keep voters should not detract from teh later discussion that clearly found policy reasons to delete and refuted the reasons to keep. This was demonstrated by one of those initial voters striking their keep, and none of the others engaged. Would you consider this again? If not, could you tell me what the appropriate next steps would be. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this could be closed as anything other than no consensus. You state above that This was demonstrated by one of those initial voters striking their keep, and none of the others engaged. Those users appear to be Jclemens, Kung Fu Man, Daranios, and BOZ. I did see that the one earlier !vote (Daranios) was struck here, where the individual went from affirming a keep to not having an explicit opinion on outcome. But JClemens engaged with the deletion arguments, and BOZ clearly had seen the whole RfD before closing, even leaving a comment after the second relist; I don't quite think they all just walked away from the conversation.

As always, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Overall I just don't see one set of arguments as stronger than the other in light of the cited WP:PAG, and there wasn't such a large numeric difference in the discussion that it would tip the outcome. If there were a strong consensus at the Neverwinter Nights talk page to include/exclude a list of characters at some point, it would very much clarify the situation and change the relative strength of arguments; I do think that having that discussion would be a reasonable next step going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if any of us had walked away, it doesn't work that way. Deletes can be invalidated by later sourcing. What could come up later in a discussion to make an early keep !vote ever presumptively invalid if unreiterated? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

At AfDs, I see all the time vague !votes like Keep. Well-sourced and notable, and then someone later comes along with a source assessment table which lays out source-by-source that an article is poorly sourced and doesn't have SIGCOV, and the intial keep !vote doesn't come back. My understanding is that closers might weigh those keep !votes less, though this might go more to relative strength of arguments than (in)validity due to timing.

In this discussion, however, there just wasn't really one where one side had a clear WP:PAG-based advantage in strength, so I agree that this sort of thing is moot. And I do think it's worth meeting the question to me from Sirfurboy on its own terms, at least for sake of courtesy here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so--a source analysis is just one person's opinion. It doesn't invalidate anyone else's opinion on sourcing. I've seen an increasing number of deceptive or outright incorrect source assessments--putting these into pretty tables doesn't (well, shouldn't) magically bestow more weight. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also seen deceptive source analyses popping up—particularly from UPE/COI editors. It's concerning, but we're somewhat fortunate that they aren't very good at it, and an experienced closer can pretty easily see this and weight the strength of arguments accordingly. The formatting isn't the important part—the important part is the substance of the arguments. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You say Overall I just don't see one set of arguments as stronger than the other in light of the cited, but the five keep !votes, all obtained in the first day or so of this discussion, all focussed on retention of the history. It became clear that (a) there was no history to retain under the redirect, and (b) the history was userfied so it could be retained, and this obviated all those arguments. JClemens later response is in reply to a discussion about recreation of the list, which is a different point, and can be done at any point whether there is a redirect or not. What exactly are the unrefuted arguments for retention of this redirect? Why do we need it? Why is that better than allowing search to pick up the multiple pages that mention such characters?

Ultimately it's not such a big deal, but I cannot help but feel that the multiple relists eliciting a very strong trend towards a conclusion that this should in fact be deleted, was really just wasting everyone's time. If people can pile on in the first 24 hours of a discussion with four or five keep !votes, it seems there is simply no point continuing the discussion. Nothing anyone could have said would have changed this once that had happened. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect to all focussed [sic] on retention of the history, that's only partly true. Fieari, for example, simply argued that the redirect was old. Even if the problem of moving the non-trivial edit history somewhere was solved, but the preference from the guideline it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links is still real, and was not wholly refuted. From there, the question became whether or not the redirect was harmful and should be deleted; frankly, there were arguments on both sides as to whether it was a net harm or a net positive. Some individuals (such as you) opined that the redirect was not useful because there were a variety of articles regarding Neverwinter Nights. Others (such as Tavix) argued that there was sufficient content in the article about the characters that the redirect was useful.

I could go on if you'd like, though I do think that [i]f there were a strong consensus at the Neverwinter Nights talk page to include/exclude a list of characters at some point, it would very much clarify the situation and change the relative strength of arguments is best advice for how to move forward here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it there. What is wrong with the word "focussed"? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"Focused (one 's') is the standard spelling of this term in modern English. Focussed (with a double 's') is a rare variant spelling, although it is more common in British and Australian English than it is in American English." (Proofed.co.uk) BusterD (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Not an error though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance of the rare spelling, and I've struck the sic above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

For your comment at RSN. Very needed. I can finally shut up there now. —Alalch E. 18:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of health insurance chief executive officers in the United States on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)