Wikipedia

Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator)/Archive 1

< Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Archive 1

Article name

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are two Dan Sullivans in Alaska running for office at the same time. They're both called Daniel Sullivan, but both go by Dan Sullivan - see here, where it also states that "Middle initials would allow for some clarity (the mayor’s is A, and the former attorney general’s is S), but both candidates declined that option", so calling the articles "Daniel S. Sullivan" and "Daniel A. Sullivan" won't work (nevermind WP:COMMONNAME). We can't even keep "Dan Sullivan (mayor)" at that disambig because he's running for (and likely to be elected) Lieutenant Governor and we can't keep changing article names based on what office the subject is elected to. Thus, I'm going to move this article to "Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1964)" and Dan Sullivan (mayor) to "Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1951)". When talking about them on the same page (for example, here), middle initials should be used to easily distinguish in polling tables etc. Tiller54 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nome Nugget

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence has been inserted: "Sullivan befriended libertarian bioethicist Jacob Appel during a 1998 visit to Nome and later served as a model for the character Peter Smythe in Appel's novel, The Biology of Luck". The citation is to <ref> "Friendship Forged on Uncommon Beliefs," Nome Nugget, September 25, 2014</ref> No hotlink is included in the reference. I looked up the Nome Nugget and this is what I found for their September 25, 2014 edition. Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any article in it called "Friendship Forged on Uncommon Beliefs". I also looked in the September 18 edition of the Nome Nugget and did not find such an article. I googled Jacob Appel and Dan Sullivan and the first reference (of six) that came back was this Wikipedia article; the others are irrelevant. So for now I am taking out this sentence from the article, and putting a note on the talk page of the user who inserted it. Champaign Supernova (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another proposal for move

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

You know, I am not usually that much into editing US politics articles. However, this one has been getting into my eye since I first saw it. And do you know why? Because the title is too damn long. Seriously, now, from the results of the meagre research I just conducted, it has been a constant practice to name US senators who need disambiguation like this: John Smith (senator). See Nathan Smith (senator), James Harlan (senator), George Gray (senator) and Henry Latimer (senator).

The current one may had been the ideal title for this article before the subject was elected a US senator. And still, it was, admittedly, not the best, but any other alternative would not work, as there are two Dan Sullivans in Alaska and both held quite high offices. Now that he is a US senator, it is the ideal opportunity to shorten the title a bit. So, in a nutshell, I propose Dan Sullivan (senator) or Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator).

Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


P.S.

Richard Stockton (U.S. Senator), Henry Cooper (U.S. Senator), James Allen (U.S. Senator), John Black (U.S. Senator) and George Jones (U.S. Senator).--The Theosophist (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The common theme that unites all those men? They're long dead. Once upon a time, the practice was that Senators or Congressmen needing a qualifier in their article name had (senator) added or, if there were more than one from different states just (Georgia) or (New York), for example. We don't do that any more. Look at current Senators who need disambiguating: there's Chris Murphy (politician), John Walsh (U.S. politician), Jack Reed (politician), Tim Johnson (South Dakota politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician) and Ron Johnson (U.S. politician). Yes, Sullivan's about to be a U.S. Senator. But he a) he's not yet, b) he's held other office and c) we don't know how long he'll be in office for or what he'll do next. As I said above, we can't go changing an article's name every time someone runs for office. If he's elected Governor or appointed to the Cabinet, we couldn't keep it at (U.S. Senator). With someone like Nathan Smith (senator), Richard Stockton (U.S. Senator), Henry Cooper (U.S. Senator), John Black (U.S. Senator) or George Jones (U.S. Senator), they all served a couple of years in the Senate and that's it. Their articles have basically nothing else to say about them. Some of them really shouldn't just be at "senator" though. George Gray (senator), for example. He also served as a federal judge for 14 years so the article should probably be at something else. Other George Grays are at, for example, George Gray (Australian politician) and George Gray (Tasmanian politician). Tiller54 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Very well said, my dear. I understand everything. Still, is not the current qualifier rather long?--The Theosophist (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree, given the circumstances here. The six-year Senate term for Sullivan is an eternity in wiki-time, and it's extremely unlikely he would leave in that time for another office. While you make good points, I think the benefits of an easier, shorter title outweigh them in this case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You are right.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Existing sourcing for military career edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The deleted line was properly founded in the existing sourcing, the Demer "candidate" article, the 5th reference in the Sullivan article.

http://www.adn.com/article/20140419/candidate-profile-dan-sullivan-marine-and-ex-resources-chief-aims-us-senate-seat

[1] Sullivan is a recipient of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal.[2]

In February 2005, he came to the attention of Gen. John Abizaid, then commander of the U.S. Central Command, the strategic military authority over the long and difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abizaid eventually wrote a letter recommending Sullivan for promotion to lieutenant colonel...

Though he was a junior officer, Sullivan didn't "sugarcoat difficult truths," the general said in the 2011 promotion letter...

Abizaid later met Sullivan's father back in the U.S. Abizaid now sits on the RPM International board of directors. He was voted onto the board in 2008 after the elder Sullivan initiated it. Abizaid's annual compensation from RPM approaches $164,000, according to recent corporate filings.

Actually, retired General Abizaid's 2011 recommendation overturned the recommendation against promotion by the Marine Corps' two appointed endorsers. The compensation figure doesn't reflect what he has received in RPM stock awards or options, which amount to holdings of over $1 million in the corporation. RPM is a major military contractor. Activist (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked RPM International Corporation Wikipedia article shows that the corporation was founded by Dan's grandfather and later run by Dan's father and now by his brother. Mention of Dan's family business was curiously absent from his Wikipedia article. Activist (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan Deployed to Afghanistan. Anchorage Daily News, July 22, 2013; retrieved July 31, 2013.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference DispatchDemer04192014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Requested move 19 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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: moved. Both old titles will be redirected to the dab, Daniel Sullivan. Jenks24 (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


– Despite some talk page discussion, I was surprised to see this never got sorted out at RM. Both (U.S. politician) and (Alaska politician) describe both of these men. The disambiguation needs to be better. Despite some concerns voiced about both of these choices, I think they're the best, most recognizable disambiguators we can use. ((mayor) alone is insufficient for the one due to Dan Sullivan (New Zealand politician).) The best other option I can see would be Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1964) and Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1951). --BDD (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposed, the alternative would be less natural and unnecessary ambiguity. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Better alternative than the birth years. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Senator" and "Mayor", capitalized, run afoul of MOS:JOBTITLES and prevailing naming convention. However, that's been widely ignored by editors who are obviously awed by officialdom and expect everyone else to be, too. More to say, I have to run along at present. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In some cases, perhaps, but not here. See the third bullet point there ("it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king"). I think the senator could go either way. His title would be "United States Senator", but he could also be called a "senator" with "U.S." as an adjective. Other articles that use "U.S. Senator" as a disambiguator use that capitalization as well, though. For the mayor, he could be something like (Alaska mayor), but again, "Mayor of Anchorage" was his actual title. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, with any variants of typography that may be agreed.
    Yes, this breaches MOS:JOBTITLES, but it's a much clearer form of disambiguation that date of birth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2016 (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.

Corrected tenures

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

John Burns, replacement for A.G. Dan Sullivan, was appointed by Governor Sean Parnell on November 31, 2010, per Legal NewsLine, published the following day. Sullivan was sworn into office as the Commissioner of Natural Resources on December 6, 2016. Burns came to work sometime in the week prior to Monday, 27 December, per the Fairbanks Daily News Miner. Activist (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

White House threatens to retaliate against Alaska if their senator votes against Trumpcare

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sullivan told the Dispatch News that Zinke’s Wednesday call sent a “troubling message.”

Needs reference in article. From; https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-threatens-to-retaliate-against-alaska-if-their-senator-votes-against-trumpcare-fe0ffcf5452c Wikipietime (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested page move

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page name is quite incorrect. Based on general standards, the article name should likely be Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator) or Dan Sullivan (Alaska politician, born 1964). Both redirect to this, so I'm requesting that the page be moved to one of those. Redditaddict69 00:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago77 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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: Moved to Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator). Consensus clearly favors the proposed move except for the capital S - consensus clearly favors lowercase s. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Dan Sullivan (American senator) → Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator) – "senator" should not have a lowercase 's'. American Senator is never used to refer to a Senator, rather U.S./United States Senator is (in the infobox of almost all Senator articles). Whoever had the page moved to this must not be familiar with general standards for Wikipedia articles. Redditaddict69 00:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And whoever wrote this nomination is not very familiar with RM discussions and title issues, as the capitalization is changed without rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a pretty heavy discussion on "S" vs. "s"... That's why I brought it up. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
My point is that "senator" should not have a lowercase 's' is not a rationale. And it's contrary to MOS:CAPS guidelines, according to pretty much everyone who has responded here. You can't just propose a move like that without a rationale, or it looks like you just don't know how RM works. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The above examples were intended to indicate that while the forms "U.S. Senator", "US Senator", "US senator" or "U.S. senator" may be found as part of various Wikipedia political qualifiers, the unused qualifier "American senator" has been appended solely to this article's main header. It so happened that nine of the ten examples used "U.S. Senator". The tenth example was moved from Frederick Hale (US senator) to Frederick Hale (U.S. senator) one hour after I posted my !vote.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing that the difference was because of a move that had just occurred. (That move was certainly an improvement, per MOS:U.S.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Does MOS:U.S. really says it's preferred with the dots? Doesn't look that way to me; I don't have a strong preference either way myself. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't! I think that may have been changed relatively recently, as it does not match my recollection. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it changed! In October 2016 it said
"In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States, though at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods)."
Now it says
"In American and Canadian English, as elsewhere, US has become the dominant abbreviation for United States. However, U.S. (with periods [full stops] and without a space) remains common in North American publications, especially in news journalism.[f] At least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecates "U.S." and recommends "US"."
I am pretty sure the words that I put in boldface are false in the current version. I very seldom encounter "US" in ordinary text in publications within the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion of that perceived factual error and other aspects of the current phrasing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. At this point it appears that the MoS guidance will be changing somewhat, although it also appears that it will not express a preference for generally including the dots. One thing that I learned is that the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual says the dots should be included, and so does the Associated Press Stylebook. I think that means that for writing about the U.S. government, most publications will include the dots, since the government itself will include them consistently and they will typically also be included in articles in the U.S. press (although some other style guides now express a preference for omitting the dots). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose uppercase "Senator" but support Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator). I don't see any reason for this to be in uppercase (and there are a lot of articles using the lowercase version to support this). --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Doesn't MOS:JOBTITLES favor the lowercase? We should be following Wikipedia's guidelines, not worrying about what is popular in local schools. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's best to maintain attribution to the fact that almost all titles have a capital "S". Unless someone wants to go on a crusade to move all "(U.S. Senator)" titles to "(U.S. senator)", we should keep the format the same. I don't think MOS:JOBTITLES does favor a lowercase anyways. This is a title, not a sentence. All official titles would have a caps there. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the formal title would not use the abbreviation "U.S." For example, I believe "President of the United States" is a formal title, but "U.S. President" is not (and therefore should be "U.S. president"). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It was a pretty short crusade, but I moved them all. Senator is still unnecessarily capped in a number of list articles, so I may have a "second crusade" coming. So far, nobody has commented on these moves that bring titles into compliance with guidelines, but it could happen. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support such an effort. "Senator" should be changed to "senator." Just because it's a hard task, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. —GoldRingChip 01:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Great. Want to help? There's a list article and a template for every state, and more, and lots of over-capitalized links to them. Maybe we should map it out and announce it at MOS or some place before starting? Or ask for bot help and approval to do this? Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest first getting widespread or consensus approval via a discussion on MOS page. Then, if/when approved, request a bot do the task. —GoldRingChip 15:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • {{Ping}} me if/when you decide to propose this. Otherwise, I'm going to stop following this talk discussion. —GoldRingChip 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The use of plain "(senator)" might depend on a guideline (or lack of one) regarding differentiation between people in subcategories of Category:United States Senators (note uppercase "S") and those in subcategories of Category:State senators of the United States (note lowercase "s"). Perhaps postings regarding this discussion at such venues as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) and/or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) may bring additional participation.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the two other cases in the above list from Category:Republican Party United States Senators that use "senator" with extra words: Arthur Brown (Utah senator) and Frederick Hale (U.S. senator). I checked the potential for ambiguity if these were simplified to just "(senator)". In both cases, I found politicians of other countries, but no state-level senators, and I think the other countries do not use the title of "senator", so I think both of those could be simplified to "(senator)". I also don't see any ambiguity for simplifying the name of this article to "Dan Sullivan (senator)" —BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have submitted a move request for Arthur Brown (Utah senator) and Frederick Hale (U.S. senator). I also included John Hemphill (U.S. senator), William Hughes (U.S. senator), and others. Please see Talk:Arthur Brown (Utah senator)#Requested move 14 September 2018. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.81.6 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for U.S. senator – "U.S. senator" is used more commonly than American senator. Not sure whose bright idea it was to move all of the politicians to "American senator", but they need to get a lot more people involved than just three. Corky 22:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support without cap: U.S. senator, which is also most common recent books per n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

They're both from Alaska so there's no point disambiguating that they are from Alaska when we should be using American. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
They're both from America, too, so leave that out, too. Then it's Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1964). But they're both politicians, too, so it should be Dan Sullivan (born 1964). Or could use Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) like various others. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In general, we don't use a DOB disambiguator without an occupation, as it's too ambiguous. DOBs shouldn't generally be used on their own as disambiguators. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Move to Dan Sullivan (senator): that seems unambiguous, much simpler than most suggestions, much more recognizable than forms using "born 1964", and it is also used by four other titles in Category:Republican Party United States Senators. Moving to Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) would also be OK, but the "U.S." is unnecessary, so WP:CONCISE would seem to favor simply "(senator)". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy with this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"(senator)" isn't accepted on Wikipedia. That could mean State Senator, Irish Senator, Indian Senator, etc. It is "U.S." for a reason. That's why I requested the page move to that. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"(senator)" is actually used for 34 titles currently, so it is accepted to some degree. Yes, it could mean all those things. But "(politician)" could mean all those things and a whole lot more, and we seem to use "(politician)" a lot on Wikipedia, so what's the problem? The title only needs to be sufficiently precise to disambiguate the topic from the others that are discussed on Wikipedia. Irish senator is a subset of senator, and senator is a subset of politician. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Proposal to use just "(senator)" is broadly objected to; see Talk:Arthur Brown (Utah senator)#Requested move 14 September 2018. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it being broadly objected to there – two people have objected, and two are in favor of it in at least some cases (so far). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know what's going on here? Clearly this discussion has moved in several different directions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Dan Sullivan (senator). I greatly dislike the Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) formulation. I certainly cant support a (born 1964) disambiguation for a sitting member of the United States Senate unless it were absolutely necessary; that should be the last case and the (unusual) need to disambiguate with the previous mayor of Anchorage is not enough reason for that. Daniel S. Sullivan is used by Ballotpedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator), without the extra caps per MOS:JOBTITLE and WP:NCCAPS. "American" should not be used as it's not precise—the convention is to include "U.S." Bradv 04:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Dan Sullivan (politician, born 1964). We should completely avoid "senator" and this is an odd enough case to merit using the year of birth as we do for other cases. Although there should be plenty of redirects and he will not be a senator forever. Manual of style is absolutely to use "American" as the demonym. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator), as per Gonnym and Bradv, as the best of the available options. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with lowercase senator. Using lowercase for job titles (when they aren't prefixing a name etc.) isn't a fussy Wikipedia guideline, it follows from basic rules of written English. —innotata 02:20, 17 September 2018 (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.

Consensus?

On what basis could it be determined that there was a consensus? Born2cycle. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I didn't count, but the vast majority supported the move that was made, and reasonable policy based arguments were made in favor of it, including MOS:CAPS to favor lowercase senator over uppercase Senator. You and one other were the only ones who argued for "politician". --В²C ☎ 01:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    It may very well be that I was the only one supporting what I particularly proposed, but clearly there were other suggestions not what this page was moved to. I wouldn't claim there was a consensus for the proposal I supported, but that seems to be the case for "U.S. senator" as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this close was correct; there was a consensus against the previous title. There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. The people wanting a (born 1964) style disambiguation should feel free to immediately start a new move proposal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hold on — there's a consensus here for a new name, so another requested move at this point would most likely be considered disruptive. If the close was in error, or the discussion needs to continue, this should go to WP:MRV. Bradv 02:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The above close was a consensus on the narrow reading of “American” —> “U.S.” and the lowercase “s”. The above discussion was unresolved on “born” and “politician” suggestions. Call it “no consensus” on those questions, and I recommend another RM to test this in no less than two months. Be sure to make a good, well considered nomination statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • A strong argument was made for just “senator” as disambiguator. —В²C ☎ 13:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that option too. So many possibilities, all unimportant, the next nominator should not be hasty, hasty repeat RMs are the worst. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with B2C and power~enwiki and SmokeyJoe on this: Changing American to U.S. is better, and leaving the (lack of) capitalization alone is better; consensus is clear on both points. This does not preclude the possibility that another better alternative will gain consensus eventually, but it hasn't yet. No prejudice against another proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I'm asking a simple question here. How can you show to us that there was a consensus for the particular proposal? This was undoubtedly one of the more complicated consensus discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Your question was answered above. The proposed move had the numbers in support, and the arguments made conformed to WP:AT policies. That's a standard consensus to move. Sure, there were other options suggested, and if someone wants to come back in a few months and try one of them out they are welcome to do so. Until then, though, this move came through in the discussion as the best of the options and we should stick with it and move on to other things.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking a different question. I would like to say that I am most definitely assuming good faith of Born2cycle and I hope my concerns are seen as respectful. I do not think it has been adequately established that the successful proposal was supported by a consensus, and moreover I was surprised that the request for consensus was closed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Amakuru. I'm sorry, Onetwothreeip, but I can't figure out how to improve the answer I've already provided. Well, I can say that the support for the move that was made was clearly higher than the support for the original move proposed, or for any other move proposed. I also note that you're the only one questioning the close decision (and my RM decisions tend to get a lot of scrutiny, which I welcome). --В²C ☎ 23:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
How many editors do you think supported the succeeded proposal, out of how many that participated in the discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
123, why don't you tell us instead what sort of close you think would have been more appropriate there, so we can get an idea what you're thinking? Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I would probably have kept it going to make whatever consensus there was more clear. My count is that seven of the fourteen participants gave clear support to the proposal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, like I said in my close, I didn't count, but now I did:

  • Okay with move to "U.S. senator":
    1. BarrelProof "Moving to Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator) would also be OK, ..."
    2. Necrothesp "I'd be happy with this"

I see 13 participants, of which 8 are supportive or okay with the move, and four more who support something close so for them I think it's an improvement. So, I think these numbers clearly support my closing summary: "Consensus clearly favors the proposed move except for the capital S - consensus clearly favors lowercase s." --В²C ☎ 23:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I proposed the move to "(U.S. Senator)" (caps S). While I still think my suggestion was better, the points made demonstrate that the lowercase S alternative wasn't wrong. I am glad that "American" was made "U.S." and have no opinion on Senator vs. senator. @Born2cycle: @Onetwothreeip: Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I think Necrothesp's "I'd be happy with this" may have been primarily referring to "(senator)" rather than "(U.S. senator)", but I agree that Necrothesp seemed OK with "(U.S. senator)", or at least did not explicitly object to it. Just to be clear, I am satisfied with the outcome and the process. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, although I assumed you made some count as you closed it. It's just a more complicated request for consensus process than most are. Innotata hadn't explicitly supported (U.S. senator), they supported "lowercase senator". BarrelProof arguably said they were okay with it but also said it was unnecessary. Necrothesp didn't say they were "okay" with it either, they supported (senator). Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, given that a plain Support is an explicit support for a given proposed move, I think Innotata’s ″Support with lowercase s″ was just as explicit support for the proposed move with the S in Senator modified to s. Point taken on Necrothesp, but I still see more support for U.S. senator than for the status quo or any other option discussed. —В²C ☎ 05:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see how you may interpret it as that but given the complexities here it doesn't seem explicit. I agree (U.S. senator) was prevailing but I think it would have been better to let it run for a while longer. Mostly I just wanted to understand why you made the decision you made, I don't intend on pursuing this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't follow all of the bureaucratic levels here (some of which I may have contributed to). This is a uniquely bad case to sort out any precedents. Can we just move on? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nredenshaw2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Sullivan_(U.S._senator)/Archive_1&oldid=1145615836"