User talk:Dmehus/Archives/2019/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How a bill becomes a law
I noticed your non-admin closure of the How a bill becomes a law redirect discussion. I'm just wondering how you found a consensus? It's clear to me that 'search terms' are not valid redirects - otherwise, there would be at least 3 or 4 more redirects for every articles, just based upon plausible search terms. Regardless, I think it was a pretty even split. How did you break the tie? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- El cid, el campeador, It was a close discussion, yes, and perhaps one better left to an administrator; however, I did not simply count "!votes" as my understanding is that's not how consensus works. If counting "!votes," including the nominator's, three were favouring delete and three were favouring retargeting, and the nominator favoured either retargeting to a globally-focused article or to deleting. However, note that Black Falcon also favoured retargeting to How a Bill Becomes a Law, an episode of the NBC TV series Parks and Recreation, which is also a possible redirect target, as their second choice to deletion. Still, because there was consensus that this was a likely search term for the process by which legislation becomes a law and because Black Falcon also noted we could add a hatnote to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, effectively he or she was in favour of the same thing. Plus, at the end of the day, since consensus can change, any editor can make a bold move and change the redirect target if they felt it should redirect to another target. Similarly, I also considered the relative strength of Thryduulf's argument in terms of how people search and how the search engine associates Wikipedia's articles with relevancy. And finally, the emerging trend in the discussion was to favouring retargeting as either a first or second choice. So, it seemed to me that a plurality of editors found this redirect to be either somewhat, if not highly, useful.
- Granted, it wasn't a strong consensus in favour of retargeting, but nonetheless, there was still a consensus, it seemed to me. Doug Mehus T·C 13:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- @El cid, el campeador: It's not as simple as saying "search terms are not valid redirects" because sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the close was reasonable, but I have concerns with the outcome. At the discussion, I suggested retargeting to How a Bill Becomes a Law, an existing article with a title that is identical except for capitalization. This option would have allowed a hatnote pointing to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, thereby ensuring navigation for searchers of either topic. Under the status quo, however, someone searching for this search string has no straightforward way to navigate to the Parks and Recreation episode. Adding a hatnote at Bill (law) would be more awkward than my suggested alternative, and so I am thinking of starting a discussion at the redirect's talk page, to retarget it as a {{R from miscapitalisation}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Black Falcon, I did note your different redirect target, and that did complicate the close modestly. However, I don't think we should redirect How a bill becomes a law to a Parks & Recreation episode particularly when the phrase "how a bill becomes law" is used commonly not only in U.S. but Canadian schools as well to describe the process of lawmaking. I actually like your hatnote idea better and don't think it would be cumbersome. It doesn't have to be awkward, just pick the right hatnote template and then apply it to both pages. Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- It is awkward from the standpoint of two search strings, which are identical except that one is the lowercase version of the other, lead to different articles. Adding a hatnote at Bill (law)#Enactment and after is also awkward, since "how a bill becomes a law" is just one of many possible phrases (e.g. "how a bill becomes law", "how bills become law", etc.). I have never seen a search-type phrase hatnoted in this way... I know we don't have to resolve this here, so I may just start a discussion at the redirect's talk page. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Black Falcon, Alternatively, I would move How a Bill Becomes a Law to How a Bill Becomes a Law (Parks & Recreation episode) and then redirect How a Bill Becomes a Law with "R from miscapitalisation" to Bill#Enactment and after since it's most unlikely people are searching for an obscure episode of a low-viewed NBC television series (which may not even be on anymore other than in reruns). Doug Mehus T·C 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea, but I think the P&R episode is the primary topic for How a Bill Becomes a Law, given the specific capitalization of that title, so I would oppose that alternative. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Black Falcon, I did note your different redirect target, and that did complicate the close modestly. However, I don't think we should redirect How a bill becomes a law to a Parks & Recreation episode particularly when the phrase "how a bill becomes law" is used commonly not only in U.S. but Canadian schools as well to describe the process of lawmaking. I actually like your hatnote idea better and don't think it would be cumbersome. It doesn't have to be awkward, just pick the right hatnote template and then apply it to both pages. Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
ANI notice
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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding . The thread is Gobsmacking quantity of repetitious bludgeoning ending with a stamp of approval. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Harder (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grant Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- DPL bot, thank you. I've corrected it via your proposed solution. Doug Mehus T·C 18:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stop tagging me during active conversations
Done and noted, but this editor asks the requesting to editor to please assume good faith should he forget and accidentally tag/ping the requesting editor in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)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 get an email and notification whenever I am tagged. If I am actively talking to you, I don’t need to be notified. I have the page on watchlist and am paying attention. It does not benefit me to do this. Please only tag me when you start a new discussion or are wanting to direct me the elsewhere or somewhere I am not watching.Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, noted. For clarity, I was using reply-link, which automatically tags you. I'll try and remember to not tag you, but please assume good faith should I forget. Doug Mehus T·C 19:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Tagging
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.
Hey, is it possible to remove tagging from emails? I love reply-link since it works well, but it annoys me with the emails that I can't seem to block. Do you know if I can keep the alerts to Wikipedia only? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- MikkelJSmith2, I think so because I don't get e-mails. I only get e-mails if someone uses the "e-mail user" feature on Wikipedia. I'll have a look. Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- MikkelJSmith2, Found it, I think. Uncheck "E-mail" box next to "Mention". I have it only as "web." In fact, I only have e-mail notifications if my user rights change, if I fail to login, if I login from an unfamiliar device, or if someone e-mails me using "E-mail this user." Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! |
|
Hello Dmehus, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Be well at Christmas
|
Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear |
|
Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
Discussion Closer is a life-saver
I just wanted to thank you for indirectly showing me Discussion Closer, which is great. I found it when looking at how you closed discussions.
Also, btw, we've had a development regarding Scheer, we've had more sources add contradicting info, so another user and I changed our votes to keep the status quo, due to weirdness of it all and due to the contradictions. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
