Wikipedia talk:What "no consensus" means

"No consensus" to keep existing policy

From this essay "If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed." While I personally see the sense in that, it contradicts what I have read over and over and over in discussions: that long-standing statements in policy or guidelines must remain unless and until there is clear consensus to change them. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion about what the default should be for WP:NO CONSENSUS between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article)

I have initiated a discussion about what the default should be for WP:NO CONSENSUS between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article) at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#What_is_the_default_for_.22No_Consensus.22_between_.22Delete.22_.28the_article.29_and_.22Redirect.22_.28the_article.29.3F?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rework title or redirects

This discussion is a detailed follow-up to:

• WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:NO_CONSENSUS_and_Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

The problem has been the 2 all-caps redirects, where 'wp:NOCONSENSUS' links to "wp:Consensus#No consensus" but 'wp:NO_CONSENSUS' has linked to essay "wp:No consensus". Hence, renaming is the main focus. I think 4 issues are involved:

1. Redirect 2-word 'wp:NO_CONSENSUS' to policy "wp:Consensus#No consensus".
2. Hatnote essay "wp:No consensus" to show "wp:Consensus#No consensus". (done)
3. Update essay "wp:No consensus" to reflect (or clarify) the issues in policy page wp:Consensus.
4. Consider a rename/move of essay title "wp:No consensus" (which is less crucial now the essay's hatnote links the policy section).

Discussion should be expanded here, as the issues have been centered around the essay, not an attempt to change the wp:CON policy. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the essay at all if we have a policy on the matter. To the extent that the essay reflects policy, it should be merged into the policy page. To the extent that material in the essay reflects some personal opinions for which no consensus has formed, move that to a title that is unlikely to be confused with the policy. bd2412 T 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The existence of policy does not seem a valid reason to delete an associated essay, especially if there is historical or divergent content involved. The nearly identical no-consensus shortcuts should indeed be consolidated, pointing to the policy. The policy and essay should have hatnotes in both directions. There is apparently no WP:NCSC (naming conventions for short cuts). nor apparently any essay naming conventions, but it seems reasonable to reduce confusion and promote disambiguation by renaming the essay to Wikipedia:No consensus (essay). Dl2000 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means → Wikipedia:What does no consensus mean – I request this page be moved to Wikipedia:What does no consensus mean, because it's correct form and we don't need to use quote marks in name. Alex ^{discussion ★} 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on move

• Comment doesn't your request forget the ending question mark? Shouldn't that be WP:What does no consensus mean? or WP:What does "no consensus" mean? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Support move

1. Support Alex ^{discussion ★} 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose move

1. I Oppose this move but Support a redirect being created from WP:What does no consensus mean. Technical 13 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Technical 13 Can you tell me why you oppose this move? Thanks. Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   I suppose. What "no consensus" means seems more grammatically correct. It is a statement, just like this essay of what the term "no consensus" really means. What does no consensus mean on the otherhand is written as a question that doesn't emphasis the fact that we are talking about the term "no consensus" as opposed to what no consensus itself means. Perhaps it is a fine line, but I think the current page name is appropriate. I wouldn't object to, and have supported a redirect be created at WP:What does no consensus mean that points to this page, which would have the same end result of that title taking you to this content. Technical 13 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose I agree with T13, quotations are used here to make clearer the use-mention distinction. The redirect sounds a good idea though. benmoore 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The current is easier to read. Create the redirect if course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. For the reasons discussed above, I disagree with the quotation marks' removal (which would make the title less clear). I don't know why the unexplained wording change (resulting in a question with no question mark) was thrown in, but I oppose that too (because the page is explanatory, not interrogatory). A redirect would be fine, of course. —David Levy 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose the proposed name but support a move to WP:No consensus, which redirects here anyway? Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
   • What would that accomplish? That title already redirects here (because it is a shortcut), and it's not like this title is obscene or otherwise inappropriate (like a matter of disagreement on the meta page Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles). Technical 13 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose the proposed title looks like a FAQ question. This is an essay not a guideline, so should not occupy a FAQ-like location, nor should it move to "no consensus" for the same reason (being an essay, not a guideline). -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

my rationales

@Butwhatdoiknow:

1. The result of a discussion ending in "no consensus" depends on the nature of the proposed change. Often, people feel that "no consensus" should means that the current status quo prevails, which, therefore, defaults to keep. That although that is not always the case.
   • of course people feel that, that's what consensus is
   • should mean is clumsy language
   • there are other discussions listed right below the article that does not default to keep
   • moved up, it's the main point
2. (community consensus supported) policy policy
   • link should be enough to explain that policies are community consensus supported
3. Policy and guideline should reflect consensus.
   • see 2
4. a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that administrator action. As with policy, blocks and other admin actions should reflect the consensus of the community.
   • if "no consensus" means the action should be reversed, "consensus" means it shouldn't be reversed
5. If a "consensus" does not mean everyone, then it is some kind of debated vote, with no need to pretend that it is a joint agreement. You don't have someone's consent when they don't. If they disagree, it's not an agreement, period. Just discuss & vote (but don't claim that "we all agree"). Many people have tried to imply that a failed consensus is still a joint agreement, perhaps because Wikipedia policies did not clarify what actions to take when consensus fails. The attitude is like treating a loss of life, as not death, but some other type of life: seek to keep the patient alive, and seek consensus. Replace the word "consensus" using the term "total consent" and the issues become very clear. The plan is not to "overpower" the dissenting opinion with numerous people who agree against them. The plan is to seek consensus, a joint agreement that all can live with. All agree not to "sneak back" and revert the consensus view.
   • i've read this footnote several times and still don't know what it's trying to tell me

i can give you more rationales if needed. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

lettherebedarklight, I suggest you make one of these changes a day, putting your rationale(s) for each change in your edit summary. Then the community will have a fair opportunity to understand what you are doing and decide whether it is improves (or, at least, doesn't worsen) the current text. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

lettherebedarklight, for the record, adding links is not copy editing. So a better practice would have been to add those separately with "adding links" in the edit summary. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)