Talk:Polar Bear hunting

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland

I have finally gone public with my new article:

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- Fyslee/talk 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than a Stub, but not enough history/data for a B Class. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 05:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge / Move to Polar Bear

Situation

• Polar bear hunting probably deserves its own page, but we don't really have any content to put in it yet. As of this writing, the content of this article is more about polar bear conservation than polar bear hunting, and is not as good as the conservation section of the polar bear article. Most of it is about quotas, without talking about weapons, techniques, butchering, history, cultural significance, etc of hunting. So I merged and redirected this article to polar bear to avoid duplicating the maintenance work, and because this page content was somewhat off-topic anyway. No content was lost this way, and readers are directed to a better article. Once the conservation section becomes large and mature, it will probably spin off an article on polar bear conservation, and maybe the same thing will eventually happen with a future hunting section.--Yannick 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• No Merger - should be a stand alone article. Chessy999 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Unless the concerns expressed by Yannick are met, it would be better to preserve the existing merge. The merge was a satisfactory move that was accepted by the community. One editor's opinion doesn't count much in that situation. If the article can be developed better, be on topic (hunting and conservation aren't always synonymous), and much larger, then it might be worth it's own article, but that isn't the case right now. I have placed an informal request for comments at the Polar bear article, so others will be encouraged to come here and leave their comments. -- Fyslee / talk 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Post an afd then and try to build a consensus, my input is leave the article as it is, plenty of good info with citations. Chessy999 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be an indefensible and unnecessary waste of Wikipedia's resources and our time. A consensus has enjoyed and respected the good work of Yannick for some time. There has been no indication that a consensus has emerged to change that decision. So far it appears that you have been acting against consensus, which is disruption. If you continue, instead of an AfD, an RfC/U would be more appropriate to examine your disruptive behavior. That too is unnecessary since I'm sure you will respect the consensus and leave the redirect alone. I'm restoring it. If a consensus emerges to change it, then I will respect that decision. Until then, deletions of the redirect will be treated as vandalism.

Having said all that, yes, there is some good information here, which has been incorporated into the Polar bear article. It isn't lost. If you wish to revive this article (and I can sympathize with you), then do as suggested and what is common practice - use your user space for that purpose. When you think you are ready, post a notice to the Polar bear article talk page (not here since not many editors will be watching it) and seek input. If you get approval, then - and only then - attempt to revive this article. You will then have a consensus behind you and will be able to defend the article in a proper manner. Right now you have less than zilch and are actually violating Wikipedia policies that forbid disruption and editing against consensus. -- Fyslee / talk 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge – Yannick's efforts were meticulous and were fully supported without a whisper of dissent when they occurred in mid-September. It was only after very nearly two months that a lone dissenter came to revert, without discussion, Yannick's hard work. In the end, such a dissenting editor always has the opportunity to prove his thesis about an article's suitability for self-sufficiency by building such an article in userspace, then to take it live when it reaches some reasonable and acceptable level of development. In the meantime, I agree that this article is undeveloped and largely duplicative. I also want to thank Yannick for his efforts at completing a careful merge. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, if it's a vote, which it's not really. Thanks for the support guys, but let's not exagerate the situation. The hard part of my work was the incorporation into the polar bear article, and Chessy999 has left that intact. Turning this hunting page into a redirect was dead easy, and I'm not offended that someone has reverted it. I just don't think it's a good idea for now. But what's more worisome is these terse comments. The latest edit summary says "Be a man and post an AFD..." That's not how Wikipedia works, Chessy999: We like to build consensus here, and we'd like to hear your reasons as to why this should be a standalone article. If you check our deletion policy you will find that there is no grounds for an AFD here, so we're certainly not going to answer your taunt.--Yannick 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - we both know you are a liar because I stated be a man and post an AFD and let the group consensus decide. In this case, a #redirect is the same as a deletion, so post the AFD and build a true consensus. Chessy999 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be friendly here, but you're making that difficult. If you really want to win this argument, you should try giving us your reasoning as to why this should be a stand alone article.--Yannick (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You won't make any friends by misquoting them and then attacking them, read my comments above that support my assertion, my final words on the matter. bye! Chessy999 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Chess999, such a failure to AGF and use of a personal attack isn't going to get you any sympathy, and in fact your attempts to force your personal and lone opinion down the throats of other editors does not bode well for your future here at Wikipedia. You do not own this article, nor do you own any right to control the redirect. It was and is a consensus decision to use a redirect. Just respect your other editors and their decision. You have your user space and can use it to develop something better. If that happens I may well support you. Right now I'm more inclined to get you blocked for disruption and vandalism. -- Fyslee / talk 07:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)