User talk:GoodDay/sandbox

Is an RFC required concerning categories, sub-categories about whether governors-general should or shouldn't be linked to categories, sub-categories about heads of state

Keeping in mind the 2016 RFC result. At the moment most of the categories & sub-categories have the Commonwealth governors-general (and some individuals) linked to heads of state of their country articles & vise versa. Now, I'm quite confident that nobody's going to object to deleting these links at (for example) Category:Governors General of Canada or Category:Governors-General of Tuvalu. But, I've run into resistance by one editor at Category:Governors-General of Australia. My question is this. Do the categories & sub-categories fall underneath the 2016 RFC ruling? or do I have to open up an RFC for these categories & sub-categories. I'm contacting those who took part in that 2016 RFC, for what to do — @Qexigator:, @Mandruss:, @Wykx:, @Skyring:, @Ryk72:, @Travelmite:, @StAnselm:, @Drcrazy102:, @Mkativerata:, @Jack Upland:, @Number 57:, @RGloucester:, @Billreid:, @Peacemaker67:, @Moxy:, @SMcCandlish:, @AusLondonder:, @Mqst north:, @Miesianiacal:. Also inviting input from @Peter Ormond:, @DrKay:, @Errantius:, @NebY: & @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is good enough. It was "unambiguous" in its results, and nothing has changed since then. A lone editor who doesn't understand this is not an immovable roadblock to consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the RfC was clear and unambiguous. Any disruption of the implementation and maintenance of the consensus should be reported as such. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the RfC was, clear, unambiguous, and is good enough. Consensus can change, but the simple passing of time does not mean that it has changed. Editors believing that consensus has changed may seek to crystallise that through a new RfC or similar; but absent a demonstrable change in consensus, there is no impediment to implementing the outcome of the RfC. Would like to see this discussion moved to a Talk page; not fussed about which. Would also encourage a review of the text at Category:Heads of state of Australia, which seems both unsourced and contrary to the RfC. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: I've updated the category-in-question, to conform with the 2016 RFC. If you can improve it more, by all means I welcome it. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I've removed the links to "Heads of states..." in all the governors-general & former governors-general categories. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To AfD or not to AfD.

I've been going back-and-forth on whether or not to nominate the Australian head of state dispute article for deletion. I see it as either a platform to promote that there is a head of state dispute & a virtual forum article - a dumping ground of sorts. Indeed, the impression I've gotten over the years, is that the majority of Australians don't even 'care' about the topic at all. It's no more of a dispute, then in any other Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise in two minds. Probably inclined to the view that it wants a dose of salts through it, to clean out all the ... synthesis & OR. And then have a look to see if there's some substance or merely a shrivelled husk. The "Person X said the GG is the HoS; Person Y said the Queen" bits should go, because they're not evidence of a "dispute" per se; or, where they explicitly form part of Smith's theory, should be attributed as such. I found a few moments the other week to start up again on my draft of a "GG as HoS theory", and will probably pursue that as time permits to see if something policy compliant can be made. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds cool. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]