User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/May

Ptolemy Macron

Was this edit a help (did it fix your citation problem)? -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, this did it. Thanks for your improvements, though.  Sandstein  21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

You reverted an edit of mine. I'd like to say I think the HTML comment is useful and that it is targeted at users who would like to include some information on statements like it, to whatever extent is possible. Do you have any opinions?? (Not on whether the HTML comment should stay, but on whether it's useful to have information of the kind the HTML comment was asking for.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The place for comments is the talk page, not the wikicode. The talk page is where readers can see such comments. I have no opinion about the question "But has it been common for it to be 4 with recent games??" I do not know whether that is the case, or what "recent" even means. It sounds like idle speculation.  Sandstein  17:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DRV Closure

You said you can't decide by fiat which side is right with regards to the subject vs. general notability guidelines in the AfD on Magdalena Zamolska, but isn't that essentially what the original closer did? I'm confused as to why that would be OK in the AfD but not the DRV, but maybe I'm missing something. (And to be clear, I don't think it's OK in either - they both should have been "no consensus" in my mind.) Smartyllama (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that if there is no consensus in a DRV, the closure is maintained by default, whereas if there is no consensus in an AfD, the article is kept.  Sandstein  08:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

AE request about NMMNG

Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's not for me to determine if the rules are silly, that's a matter for ArbCom. Admins are just here to enforce the rules. The block was required independently of the consensus rule, and it is therefore maintained.  Sandstein  07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See the AE appeal here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination)

Please explain your closure, specifically why you did not choose merge and/or redirect, both listed under WP:ATD, when no delete !voter advanced any argument that such an outcome was not proper. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge and/or redirect can be useful compromise outcomes when they address both sides' concerns, e.g. when some raise notability concerns and others just want to preserve the material somewhere. In this case, the sequence of "delete" opinions towards the end indicate to me that many editors do not consider the content as such worth keeping, in addition to notability concerns.  Sandstein  20:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're inferring that from their lack of reference to merging? I'd counter that since WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R are both policy, an argument from such silence is insufficient to overcome either of those outcomes. That is, that a "rough consensus" cannot assign equal weight to such !votes, as they ignore previously-made relevant policy arguments.

This AfD is actually a pretty good test case for whether this argument is valid: The nominator agreed with a merge, there were clearly some sources, and the delete !voters, while numerically predominant at the end, did not address the merge possibility. At the same time, we have Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD which clearly expects files that don't actually need to be deleted in the first place (e.g., as a merge or redirect would be an appropriate outcome) should be restricted from AfD in the first place--something that both you and I know doesn't happen.

You're far from the only administrator who would have closed such a debate with this progression in this manner, so I think it might be productive to take this to a "friendly" DRV to generate a broader community consensus on whether you have appropriately assigned weight to the latecomers who didn't address WP:ATD possibilities in their reasoning. What do you think? Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If you like.  Sandstein  05:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's Syria related and discretionary sanctions apply but...

... I don't even know what to do with this kind of thing [1] (quote "Germans are questioning this also, and they know a thing or two about crematoriums"). Any suggestions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, never intended to offend anyone. Will strike. But, Marek, please ping me next time when you go out shopping. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

In this edit, you made reference to WP:N, but the context suggests you meant WP:NPV. Not a big deal, but I was initially puzzled by the reference to Notability.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct - thanks.  Sandstein  17:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Abeokuta Girls Grammar School closing

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeokuta Girls Grammar School - My argument appears to have been ignored as "anyone mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES gets ignored".

There's no guidance as to what a reliable source for a high school in Nigeria would be, or what types of schools are notable. Half the participants claim there is a consensus, half claim there is none; this is by definition "no consensus".

In particular, there's no consensus as to whether references such as [2] would be sufficient for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that sources for Nigerian schools are in any way more problematic than sources for other schools. They just need to meet WP:RS.  Sandstein  04:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Big Fish Theory

Why did you close Big Fish Theory as delete instead of redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why should I have?  Sandstein  19:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - "redirect until more content is added to the article would have been my preferred option" - gongshow

"@Gongshow:, to keep the article history, I would be on board with a redirect" - ME

"If a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect." - Another Believer

"Reply - @Another Believer:, in the interest of keeping the article history, I do not disagree." - ME

Three votes to redirect, and two votes to delete. Redirects are cheap, and may have useful history. The default is to redirect with history if there is a proper target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a default to redirect, and there are no votes. A redirect might make sense here, but then, why did you nominate the article for deletion, rather than just redirecting it yourself?  Sandstein  20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I tried to {{PROD}} the article, however, that got reverted, and I am certain that the same thing would have happened to a redirect. With that said, there is no forum entitled "Articles for discussion", so I took it to WP:AFD, which has teeth. There is consensus not to have an article, but no consensus to delete the article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is an abuse of process to nominate an article for deletion and then request a redirect closure. A PROD would also have resulted in deletion. Request declined. If you think a redirect is warranted, you can still create it.  Sandstein  04:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - Because there is no forum entitled "Articles for discussion", and "redirect"/"merge" are valid outcomes of an AFD, I am going to disagree with your statement that "It is an abuse of process to nominate an article for deletion and then request a redirect closure". In any event, I have redirected the article, whose old version can be moved to a user space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Silent Wife

Hello, Sandstein. If you would, you can translate artile of Silent Wife by A. S. A. Harrison to English. Thanks. gigho (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Indonesian.  Sandstein  08:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)