Talk:Yuna Ogata

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 07:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Japanese voice actress Yuna Ogata is the daughter of a former professional baseball player? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that voice actress Yuna Ogata is the daughter of former NPB player and Hiroshima Toyo Carp manager Koichi Ogata? Source: Same as ALT1
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Imtiaz Qureshi
  • Comment: Article is currently at AFD so I am requesting the nomination be put on hold until that is resolved. I am nominating it now regardless of the outcome of the AFD to remain within the seven day limit. QPQ will be provided if the article is kept and/or a week has passed, whatever comes first. Additional hook suggestions are welcome.

Created by Miraclepine (talk). Nominated by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) at 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Yuna Ogata; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Oppose - a fairly useless chunk of knowledge; serves nothing but promotion by means of Wikipedia of a marginally notable person. Nothing to say other than being a daughter? Telling... - Altenmann >talk 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Since this is at AfD, marking with the appropriate icon while until it closes one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuna Ogata closed as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And now the article has a merger tag, so until that is resolved the nomination cannot be approved, though I guess the article/hooks can still get a review in the meantime? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination back on hold while merge discussion is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Article was merged, therefore the nomination fails. Feel free to try it on again when an article on her sticks.--Launchballer 07:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am proposing merging/redirecting this article into Dialogue (group), which seemed to be the consensus at the AfD. Pinging Lovemuhcko, Altenmann, Narutolovehinata5, ThreeBootsInABucket, Significa liberdade, AirshipJungleman29. Link20XX (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Approve redirect: Given that none of the other members of the band have detailed information on the target page, I think it would make the most sense just to redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would support a redirect at least for now, given her lack of major roles (only one main role) and her other roles being largely supporting at best (her only other really notable work at the moment is with Pokémon). Would not oppose a recreation if/when she gets more roles and/or more coverage primarily about her instead of focusing on Dialogue+. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per NLH5 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I provided in the AfD discussion which, contrary to what OP stated, was closed as no consensus. I also take exception to the selective pinging which I hope isn't an attempt to stack the discussion with those who previously expressed support for OP's preferred outcome. DCsansei (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The closer also said that anyone can propose a merger on the talk page (which I have done); I also only said it "seemed like" the consensus not that it was the consensus. Regarding your comment at the AfD, you must have missed it since I addressed every point you brought up. Regarding the pinging, I pinged everyone who I felt had a meaningful participation in the later part of the AfD, which included a user who voted keep multiple times. I have no intention to WP:CANVAS anything and I have yet to see any argument that actually holds any water as to how this person is notable. Link20XX (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure of discussion

@DCsansei: What is the issue here? No one commented in the discussion for over a week so I decided to be WP:BOLD and just do it since there was no new argument brought up to justify not redirecting, which is what most participants supported. I'm aware it was an involved close but since it had gone so long without any activity I just don't see any issue, especially keeping WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR in mind. Link20XX (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are not uninvolved. You also mis-stated the AfD consensus which was clearly "no consensus" not a consensus for your proposed merger, which you also did not properly close (since as an involved party, you may not close) and, even if it were an appropriate close, I do not see where you merged the information from this article into the target article. DCsansei (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@DCsansei: I know I am involved and usually it would mean I am unable to close the discussion, but since it hadn't received any new comments in over a week and the only person who opposed the merge was you I decided (keeping WP:NOTBURO in mind) to ignore all rules and just do it since it's extremely unlikely someone else would have come along to close it (they probably would've come to the same conclusion anyways). Also, please stop taking so long between comments. I thought this issue was resolved only for you to come twice with the same argument I have repeatedly explained why it doesn't apply multiple times and revert my edit after a week. Please be more frequent with your comments because it's hard to have a discussion when you only comment once every week with the same point over and over again. Link20XX (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To address your other point, while the discussion was originally about merging, the participants felt that redirecting (as opposed to merging) would be better, so that's what I did. I don't see the issue with that. Link20XX (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)