Wikipedia

User talk:The Gnome/Archive 5

< User talk:The Gnome
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Isaacl in topic Main page closure

Your edit to WP:Articles for deletion/Bubblegum dance

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I think you've messed up the formatting. Per MOS:INDENTMIX, a reply to a * bullet should use *:, but you changed it to :*. Please revert your edit, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and correct me. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of annoying. I couldn't undo or revert because you also had a comment in your edit. When you've made an incorrect edit and it's pointed out to you, the responsible action would be to fix your own error. I've fixed it for you. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, sorry but I was too rushed last night. I'd have done it this morning if you hadn't done it already. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It's okay, sorry for my grouchiness yesterday. Schazjmd (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Weirsky

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I see nothing in the draft text that merits a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. In so many words, I agree with this assessment. Careful with this tactic of inviting others to finish your work; it's tantamount to canvassing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And, probably inevitably, the blocking hammer falls.  . -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Emanuel Cleaver on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Greetings, Naypta. The invitation is redundant since I already participate in the aforementioned RfC! I'm bringing this to your attention in case you want to somehow fine tune your bot. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Sotiris Tsiodras

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  • Tsiodras is really involved to this scandal it is not a libel, the free flow of information will be continue, your threats are fools.
Above text added anonymously by MadJack1974GR.
  • Hello, Gnome! You requested full protection for the above article because of BLP violations being added by one user. I considered adding Extended Confirmed protection because I noticed that the user was not extended confirmed. But I also noticed that he has not edited the article since a warning was put on his talk page - but a brand new IP has, putting in the exact same edits as the original user! So I semi-protected it for now. But protection is not really what is needed when just one user is involved; if indeed the stuff he is adding is not supported by reliable sources (I can’t tell), then he should be topic banned from the whole “COVID-19 in Greece” area. To do that I would suggest a report at ANI. First you should verify that these accusations are false, or at least are not reported in reliable sources. If you need help evaluating the sources being cited, or other advice, you might consider consulting Magioladitis, who is a native Greek speaker and an admin on the Greek Wikipedia (and formerly here). -- MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, MelanieN. I'm afraid I'll have to go the ANI route since, despite my invitations to talk about it, their only response is a bunch of unexplained reverts. Here goes. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I replied there. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops - looks like you forgot to notify MadJack about the ANI report. That is required and is the first thing many people will look for. You can use Template:ANI-notice if you want. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you are offline so I will do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Too bad you're offline, you're missing all the fun. MadJack replied at the ANI and it did not go well. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. Real life got in the way, and rather nastily too. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, The Gnome. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Wanderingpotato (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Greetings, Sideswipe9th. Did you sent this notification to every editor who got involved in the discussions to which I participated? -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    Hey there. I sent it to everyone who I've seen participate in a gender/sexuality related discussion over the last couple of days and who hasn't received it within the last twelve months. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit at Talk:J. K. Rowling

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. Just letting you know I had to undo your recent edit at Talk:J. K. Rowling. It's generally considered bad form to edit other people's talk messages, especially to add emphasis they did not originally add when making their comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I often try to improve the format and only that, as the pertinent rule allows (WP:TPO: fixing format errors that render material difficult to read) as long as the meaning remains unaffected, strictly to improve clarity & assist closers. After bolding some suggestions there I found that it'd be difficult or maybe impossible to do that for all input, so I was about to undo the bolding myself. In so many words, I agree with the undoing you did. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Your name

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If you don't mind me asking completely out of the blue, what's the reason for your name? Always made me curious. Hope you're enjoying your weekend, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, A. C. Santacruz. It's extra texture or something, Ι don't care anymore. That's the way it goes: all things must pass. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the name combines a Beatle solo album's cover, as 'inted above, and a personal incident. Thanks for asking.   -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I love the Beatles! My favorite song is their version of Long Tall Sally. You can barely tell it's them! Although Anthology 2's version of Real Love is so nice in its rough mixing... hard to decide with such a good band. It's quite endearing to imagine I might actually be talking with a real gnome in talk pages and the like. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Main page closure

Latest comment: 2 years ago55 comments20 people in discussion

First off, thanks for pinging the participants and explaining in detail your close on the "Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner" discussion.

That said, I'm a bit worried by some of the phrasing. I'm not demanding you revert your close or anything (although I obviously disagree with it), but I really don't like the "precedent" some of the ideas you brought up set, specifically the idea that the conversation was "adulterated" by too many proposals. People introducing new and additional ideas in a discussion is both common and not necessarily a problem. For sure, there are WP:TRAINWRECK discussions where there's too many balls in the air and too many mutually exclusive options, but this was a fairly simple threshold: eliminate, reduce, move, or keep portals, with opinions varying on the spectrum. Say there's some controversial activity - fishing in the river - and somebody proposes to throw fishers in prison. Somebody else adds in that actually, fishers should just be executed. Somebody else says that jail is good, but they'd also be satisfied with a large fine. There's differences in opinion here, but everyone agrees that fishing needs to stop. At bare minimum, the fine option is probably better than doing nothing. The anti-Portals everywhere crowd (equivalent to the execution-favorers) are still editors in good standing and it's not like their opinions don't count.

It's a bit frustrating because I'd argue that people merely mentioning other options can be a good thing and has led to useful compromises in the past. It's very hard to herd cats; it feels like you're "punishing" the admittedly numerically superior anti-Portal links consensus for not all robotically parroting the exact same line, which is unlikely on Wikipedia. It's not good in the long term if editors have to warn each other in an RFC to all advocate the exact same thing. Yeah, there were some differences here, but they were minor and generally along a simple spectrum rather than being entirely distinct. If you really felt that there wasn't consensus for outright elimination, then, similar to the fine option above, you could have ruled in favor of moving the Portals to a less prominent spot on the bottom, or otherwise reducing them somehow.

More productively, if you don't plan on altering your close - are you saying that if the problem really was that the proposal wasn't "clear-cut" enough, the pro-modification side should just run the exact same RFC again with an explicit proposal of "here's the change, say yes or no, no explanations, no modifications, no preferences" and a similar split would cause you to think consensus was reached? I think that'd be a waste of time, the answer is obvious, but if that's what it takes... SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree. It's frustrating that I spent a good amount of time in the discussion, but the ultimate result appears to have been decided based on the wording of the RFC question. If someone told me a month or so ago that the wording of the RFC question was unclear and thus this would lead to no consensus, I would have saved myself a bunch of time by not participating in the RFC. Ultimately, I don't think the wording of the RFC question should play as significant of a role as compared with what participants actually said as the discussion evolved. I think it's OK and common for RFC discussions to evolve beyond the questions posed. Also, FWIW, you categorized me under #4, but almost all of my arguments were focused on #1 (lack of page views), especially in discussions after my initial !vote (where I got heavily into the page view statistics). I wonder also about #1: in my view, #1 was proven as a fixed fact: 2000-5000 daily page views per portal is indisputably a tiny fraction of the millions of page views the main page gets, and also a tiny fraction of what other links on the top of the main page get (e.g., tens of thousands of daily views for a TFA). In my view, this makes #1 a very, very strong argument, and one that was not rebutted by opposers (though some tried). I think that makes the majority's arguments much stronger, such that an against-the-numbers no-consensus close would require some equally-strong argument on the opposer side, which I don't see. But, of course, I'm involved and thus my view on all of this is inescapably biased. All that said, I do appreciate you taking the time to read everything and write a thorough closing statement, even if I disagree with it, I thank you for stepping up and volunteering for this. Levivich 16:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, SnowFire and Levivich. The closing was based on the requirements outlined in WP:RFCBRIEF, and mainly about the need to have a clear, self-contained and concise statement. It is quite evident that we had a seriously foggy RfC. The initiator, after putting up two options, and allowing input on that basis for two days, amended the RfC statement by adding a 3rd option. Anyone who'd go through every contribution in both the survey and the discussion, as I did many times over, would find responses that would be nigh impossible to place under unique categories. The content of the discussion, in particular, makes the train wreck quite obvious. If this seems like time has been wasted I am sincerely sorry for the frustration felt but we just cannot have decisions that contain and are based on significant, inherent fuzziness. I state this not just because of the importance of the intro page to Wikipedia itself; I'd say it for every decision taken within this wonderful, popularly sustained project. The process towards arriving at collective decisions is by definition slower than when it concerns individual ones and is often rather more tiring. and also often frustrating. In sum, I cannot in good faith see how it'd be correct under these circumstance to decide as a result of the RfC to keep the portals where they are or defenestrate them entirely. Thanks for the kind words of both of you, by the way. -The Gnome (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As a brief note: this was not a RfC. It was an informal proposal that ended up on WP:CENT. JBchrch talk 16:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. I fundamentally don't agree that the discussion was as fuzzy as you seem to think it was. Many/most of the pro-removal side agreed with all of reasons 1, 3, and 4, just to varying degrees of loquacity. If this discussion was too unclear, then all but the bluntest of up/down votes would be closed as 'no consensus'. I reiterate the earlier point: it feels like the pro-removal side was penalized for being flexible. Mentioning a second-choice option, such as moving the links, does not invalidate the clear and stated first choice of removal. Or to make the issue more abstract, if 30 people vote A and 17 vote B, A has consensus (barring usual exceptions). If 17 people vote B, 15 people vote A, 10 people vote A or C, and 5 people vote C or A, A should still win, despite C being raised as a possibility. That is normal voting, not an indecipherable train wreck. SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that most proposals to redesign or change the main page tend to fail for lack of consensus and so this outcome is quite normal. There didn't seem to be a particularly strong argument for a change and a strong consensus should be required to change the structure of such a stable and protected page. Thanks to The Gnome for stepping up to make the call. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure challenge

Hi The Gnome. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time read, summarize and close the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner. Unfortunately, I would like to challenge this closure, as I have a different understanding of the discussion's outcome. I will just focus on two arguments:

  1. The fact that the discussion extended beyond the main proposal did not prevent consensus from forming around the main proposal. It is true that the discussion extended beyond the main page's top banner and that editors began to discuss the place of the portal links on the main page. It is also true that I suggested on 10:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC) that editors may voice their views on this issue. However, what I did not do what to [add] the choice to move the portals, instead of removing them entirely. On the contrary: if you read my discussion with Hut 8.5, for instance, I made it clear that my proposal was very narrow (i.e. the top banner). The added note was a way to underline this specific point and not to add a third choice. With this in mind, and considering your (correct) reading of the !votes, I think the discussion established consensus to remove the links for the top banner, but reached no consensus on whether they should be placed somwhere else. What I would have suggested as the next step in the process is to take no action until this second question is settled—which brings me to...
  2. The suggested process is inconsistent with WP:NOTBURO. I am going to be direct here: the process suggested in the last paragraph of your closure is convoluted, goes way beyond the discussion at hand, and also involves a substantial overlap with the discussion we just had. Suggesting a total of four discussions (this one + three) just to adress portal links on the main page seems to be completely overkill of a process. Although I understand that this suggestion is not stricly part of the closure, I think it ignores the fact that a lot of editors have now voiced their opinion on the issue of "portal links on the main page", that some consensus has emerged therefrom, and that it is unecessary (from a NOTBURO standpoint) to start the process from scratch. JBchrch talk 16:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding that I also agree with SnowFire and Levivich's comments above: my lack of competence in the drafting of a clear proposal should have a very limited effect on the resulting consensus. As a though experiment, I would argue that even if you replace my initial proposal with "qqihjksdfsdfhpflsdlhf" (close enough), you could still establish a consensus from the discussion below. JBchrch talk 16:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, and also the kind words, JBchrch. I'll remark only this: You object to the decision on account of the part about the process forward but I made clear that this was a mere suggestion on my part and not part of the decision. I could have proposed "qqihjksdfsdfhpflsdlhf"  , as you put it, and the decision would not be affected. But I suppose all we can do is await the outcome of the challenge. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • But what are your thoughts on the other arguments, The Gnome? I'm asking because per Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging other closures, I'm supposed to contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. I mean I can go to AN if you stand by your closure, but I'm not dying to do that, so I wanted to check if you were open to reconsidering. JBchrch talk 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that this wasn't an RfC (which I hadn't even noticed until it was pointed out above). That means it didn't hit the Legobot circulation or the RfC pages. There are definitely editors out there who participate in RFCs but who may not see a CENT advertisement (because they don't look at the pump or AN pages). Personally I've always felt the function of the {RfC} tag is key to ensuring we get global consensus and not local consensus.
    If it wasn't tagged as an RfC and everyone agrees the question posed was somewhat ambiguous, and I'm also getting the sense (without putting words in The Gnome's mouth) that the no consensus result was as much procedural as substantive (ie, I could see this as a "procedural close"), I wonder if the thing to do is to either relist it and add an RfC tag and let it run further, or just open a new RfC with a better RfC question and let that run (and I'd ping the 30 participants to ensure their work on the prior discussion doesn't go to waste and that they know it's being relisted/rerun). Anyway, just wanted to throw that idea out there. If it is relisted/rerun, I feel that The Gnome's closing statement also could function well as a relisting statement, helping to focus further discussion (or as a close of a pre-RfC discussion, if this is what this was, summarizing the points and pointing to what would make for a good RfC). Basically I could see this close as being a helpful step forward in one way or another, as opposed to the end of the line (and I bet that is Gnome's intent anyway, to provide a step forward and not the end of the line, if I'm reading the close correctly). Levivich 17:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll elaborate further, JBchrch, as soon as real life gets out of the way. -The Gnome (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Well said, levivich. I would agree that this discussion not having been an RFC matters and should influence the way forward. Makes sense to me to relist it as such rather than starting from scratch. Retswerb (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - thanks for the ping below, and for the record having looked at The Gnome's close I think it's a good one. A lot of the objection to the proposal was specifically that simply removing the portal links without altering the Main Page in any other way would simply leave a load of blank space. That was a very active reason to oppose, and one I would also agree with. Thus to have closed this RfC as a simple "remove the portals" without a consensus for any further course of action would have been doing exactly what the opposers opposed. So instead of complaining about this well-thought-through close, those in favour of removal should instead concentrate on drafting a proposal that everyone can get behind. If you can come up with a proposal which gives back that space instead of leaving it dead – for example by shifting across the part of the banner that's underneath "Welcome to Wikipedia" and then reducing the overall vertical footprint of that banner – then I could probably be persuaded to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not convinced that the closure was good or bad as The Gnome raises a lot of good points. While it is true that the discussion was muddled, I think (recognising the bias of having !voted this way) that there is a consensus to do something with the portals. In the final sentences of the closure, The Gnome mentions a few gradual steps. IMO #1 has been answered: portals should not be prominently present at the top of the main page. We now need to figure out what to do with them and I'm similarly not convinced that opening a closure review is the best way to go about it, unless the goal is to reopen the discussion with a clear statement along the lines of "We've figured out that we shouldn't have portals at the top. Now what?" just so we don't spend another month arguing what colour the bikeshed should be. Anarchyte (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (Responding to ping, thank you). I was on the side of the opposition, but I don't understand how this discussion could be viewed as a consensus for anything - not least because not everyone saying "remove" was clearly meaning the same thing. I do think this was a good closure and strongly disagree with Anarchyte that it produced a consensus to remove the portals from the top bar, or indeed do or not do anything else with them. I'm also surprised to see that the "these get a tiny number of views" line is still being argued by some to be "unarguably" factual when it was repeatedly proven otherwise in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I've read the discussion and don't think I have much to add, except that I find the comparison to an execution-favorer offensive and it dissuades me from participating in a discussion about portals. Vexations (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It's just an analogy. Nobody's saying that any editor is actually an execution-favorer, and indeed the same paragraph explicitly says that opposing portals in their entirety is a valid point of view.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, Vexations. Allow me to doubt there was anything in my reasoning that merits such strong terms. I pointed out the obvious: some of those suggesting the removal of portals from the main page's top argued on the basis of their opposition to portals in general. In the context of what truly transpired, terms like "execution" seem to me a little over the top. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Most people favoured a change. However, the analogy about stopping fishing doesn't work, because people supported different things. A sizeable chunk of the remove side did not express toleration of a move, or at least didn't consider it, and forwarded only a wholesale removal. So there wasn't a clear consensus. Maybe most would actually be fine with a move, but the close, given the actual situation, is proper. Dege31 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I was surprised when I saw the closure and had the same objections that are now being expressed by others. I'm glad (dare I even say surprised) that most of the discourse here from challengers and The Gnome has been civil. Though I support independent scrutiny of the closure, I think a lot of people do not appreciate how deep WP:INVOLVED runs: if you participated in the RfC, it means you are involved, which fundamentally means you are unable to neutrally assess the consensus of the discussion. So I can support another uninvolved admin taking a look, but I'm not in a position to say that the close was wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Bilorv. It should go without saying that until the moment of closing off the discussion on portals, I had been completely uninvolved with that issue. In fact, I have never expressed an opinion on the matter (even about portals in general) at any point in time, anywhere in Wikipedia. Therefore, I fail to understand how we could ever involve WP:INVOLVED in this.   (Pun intended.) -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I meant to say that the people challenging the closure, and myself, are WP:INVOLVED, not that you were. As such they can't say "this close was wrong" (and I refrain from saying so). That's a judgement we're fundamentally incapable of making. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarifying. Well, the whole interaction here is the extention of a discussion between the closer (me) and the nominator (JBchrch) per this Wikipedia prompt, as JBchrch mentioned above. Myself exempted, everyone else is perforce "involved." But I see your point. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I was surprised to see this close, and although the closer articulated their rationale clearly, it remains controversial enough that I'd like to see it reviewed at AN. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I too had similar concerns about the closure as being expressed here. I am involved and do support change, but I think there was a pretty clear consensus that portal links should not remain where they currently are, and (IMO) no convincing counters to the various arguments people gave. It is fine for people to arrive at complimentary positions for different reasons. I too missed that there was never an RFC tag. I would urge the closer to reflect on and seriously consider amending or undoing their close (I am not demanding here that they must reverse it), or otherwise I would support some fresh eyes reviewing it. Cavalryman (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC).
  • Thanks for the ping below.
    I was puzzled in your CS regarding opponents' basis #2—which you are reiterating here as unnumbered #4—that those who argued for removal of portals altogether shouldn't have their opinions or !votes counted in this conversation. Those who dislike a concept in its entirety are still entitled to an opinion on specifics of how the concept should be implemented until such a time as it may or may not be dismantled, are they not? This seems like a serious omission here, and given the number of participants with this viewpoint, an omission which distinctly impacts one's assessment of the consensus or lack thereof reached.
    I'm personally indifferent to portals, but portals and links to portals are not the same thing and I see no reason to disenfranchise portal-opponents from a discussion on the existence and placement of portal links on the main page. Retswerb (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow lots to read over....I would agree that the close missed the main point.Moxy-  02:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm content with whatever course is taken. Be it maintain the closure or overturn it, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to objections

I'll offer a consolidation of the objections, but before that, allow me to clarify one thing: The content itself of the discussion was generally constructive and hopefully helpful for the next step - more on this further below. The train wreck concerns the derailing of the initial proposal onto a sprawl of opinions, which, though helpful in gauging the community's views, could not, as I saw it, be resolved in a clear, single decision. But, let's press on.

The suggested process is inconsistent with WP:NOTBURO (JBchrch): First, I already reiterated that, as I wrote in the closing statement (CS), the suggested process was not part of the decision but a suggestion. Second, invoking here the policy about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy is counter-productive and somewhat contradictory. I'm admonished to respect the numerical superiority ("you're 'punishing' the admittedly numerically superior anti-Portal links") and at the same time to assess beyond Wikipedia's policies. I chose, after due consideration, to assess arguments and context on their merits instead of bean counting, just as the invoked NOTBURO policy allows: Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I saw no such consensus.

Daily page views per portal is indisputably a tiny fraction of the millions of page views the main page gets (Levivich): (The effort to categorize the arguments offered by all sides was extensive. I put Levivich in the category of those arguing of the basis of "inefficiency" an account of the very terms used in their suggestion ("Having more blank space is a good thing. We don't want a 'busy' or full front page. Given the scarcity/value of front page screen real estate, the threshold should be most not some. For browsing Wikipedia, only one link is necessary, and it should be to WP:Contents."), which for me clearly spells "lack of efficient use of space." But if this is important, I apologize.) I have the initiator JBchrch agreeing with Kusma who pointed out that "each of the top portals are roughly the same as those of typical Did you Know items, suggesting that people click on them reasonably often." I'd say that's a serious point in rebutting the lack of views argument - unless we want to get rid of DYK too. The statement by JBchrch that "no one clicks on them" was thankfully stricken off, and replaced by something completely different, i.e. "[the portals] are not essential to the main page's function."

Please note this is the first time that I'm touching upon the issue of page views. I did not involve that aspect of the proposal in the CS. The reason for that is that I considered the question of clarity more important and did not want the page-views issue blunt the importance.

Mentioning a second-choice option, such as moving the links, does not invalidate the clear and stated first choice of removal (SnowFire): Suppose the discussion was as clear cut as my colleagues here claim and the discussion was closed by someone else with a decision to Remove. Would I be entirely within my prerogative to remove the portals entirely from the Main Page? Would another editor, call them "The Genome", be correct were they to place the portals somewhere else within the Main Page? Lots of editors suggesting a Move/Remove had ideas, if you recall, in fact more than one idea! So, I suggest to you that until the question "What to do with the portals" would have been resolved, the portals should not have been touched at all. And that another discussion should ensue, as I happened to suggest, to take this step by step.

I think the discussion established consensus to remove the links for the top banner(JBchrch): The presentation of the arguments that were the basis of Removal suggestions was not a trivial move. We see that among the Removal suggestions are 8 made by editors who are hostile to all portals, with varying degrees of hostility. I suppose their words speak for themselves so I won't tire you by repeating anything beyond Schierbecker's admirably succinct input: "Useless crap." This is an interesting aspect of the portals' discussion but not something new in Wikipedia. (For something recent, one may check out this.) Suppose I open a discussion to argue we move info XYZ from the infobox of a biography somewhere else in the page. And, among the other responses, I get from a dozen editors an almost enthusiastic endorsement of removing info XYZ from the infobox, because, as they state in prose of varying coloring, they "hate the sight of infoboxes" (a phrase fished from the infamous Infobox Wars), "this is a good first step" towards dismantling the whole thing, and so on. Personally, I would not find those responses helpful. And I'd be wrong to count them in "my" favor. In sum, I offered on one hand the total of the Removal/Keep suggestions, but, on the other, it's important to know wherefrom came a large extent (almost a 3rd) of the Removal ones. They belong to a general discussion abt portals in general; which I trust was not the objective of JBchrch's proposal.

I remain optimistic about the future of the debate abt the Main Page's portals, be what may - and including the possibility of invalidating the closure. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, once again, for taking the time to detail your reasoning and adressing our concerns. Unfortunately, I still think we have some significant disagreements in our understanding and judgement of the discussion, which probably make it worth for me to go to AN. I will take the next 24h-48h to think it over and to see whether some participants wish to comment on your talk page. I guess the gist of it is that I'm still unconvinced by the WP:DISCARDing of (or lower weight attributed to) some !votes because of "side-debates", i.e. 1. whether the links should be moved somewhere else on the talk page and 2. the future of portals in general. In any case, know I am sincerely thankful to you for taking the time to sort out this mess. JBchrch talk 19:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, really

And I denounce as false the rumour that I engineered that closure just to get action in my comatose talk page. Not true!   -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course. JBchrch talk 19:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
L plus ratio. Schierbecker (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Pingsty

In case anyone else wants to comment, ask, rant, or curse:
Alanscottwalker, AleatoryPonderings, Amakuru, Anarchyte, Andrew Davidson, Aza24, Bilorv, Blueboar, BusterD, Calliopejen1, CaptainEek, Cavalryman, Certes, Chicdat, Dege31, Dream Focus, EpicPupper, Espresso Addict, Firefly, Gadfium, Godsy, Gog the Mild, GoodDay, Guilherme Burn, Hut 8.5, isaacl, Izno, Jackattack1597, JackFromWisconsin, Ktin, Kusma, Moxy, NANPLover47, Neil Shah-Quinn, Northamerica1000, Pppery, Pldx1, Remagoxer, Retswerb, Ruslik0, Sandstein, Schierbecker, Sdkb, SmokeyJoe, Thincat, Thryduulf, UnitedStatesian, Vexations, Whatamidoing (WMF), Wikmoz, the wub, Xaosflux, Zero0000. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone of these WP:MENTIONs worked, because you need to sign your comment for these to work. Also, I would recommend using {{u}} because I'm not 100% that piped mentions result in a notification. Note that in my view, pinging everyone is not absolutely necessary. JBchrch talk 04:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Work-me obviously has no opinion on this subject. I do have an opinion that you should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable "Discussion tools" if you haven't already. It makes pinging people easier. :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Whatamidoing (WMF). I will wait another 24-48h to launch my AN challenge. (written with beta discussion tools 🙃) JBchrch talk 01:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
And nobody got pinged, because it turns out that was more than 50 names. On the upside, I suppose I just confirmed that the limit here is 50 names (because that's what the error message said). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Pingsty: the sequel

Pinging Alanscottwalker, AleatoryPonderings, Amakuru, Anarchyte, Andrew Davidson, Aza24, Bilorv, Blueboar, BusterD, Calliopejen1, CaptainEek, Cavalryman, Certes, Chicdat, Dege31, Dream Focus, EpicPupper, Espresso Addict, Firefly, Gadfium, Godsy, Gog the Mild, GoodDay, Guilherme Burn, Hut 8.5, isaacl, Izno, Jackattack1597. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What am I being pinged for? GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it has something to do with the recent discussion about portal links on the main page. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, GoodDay. I pinged everyone I could identify who took part in this discussion, whose link is visible at the top. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you're just letting us know that it's been closed. Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
More accurately, Wikipedia colleagues expressed here their disapproval of the closure and I thought it'd be honest to invite all who took part in the relevant discussion. I hope the pings weren't too intrusive. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I received any notification from this post, either. Probably because my (non-existent) user page was not linked to. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Sincere apologies, isaacl. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Not worries at all: just noting it for future reference. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pingsty: finale

Also pinging JackFromWisconsin, Ktin, Kusma, Moxy, NANPLover47, Neil Shah-Quinn, Northamerica1000, Pppery, Pldx1, Remagoxer, Retswerb, Ruslik0, Sandstein, Schierbecker,  Sdkb, SmokeyJoe, Thincat, Thryduulf, UnitedStatesian, Vexations, Wikmoz, the wub, Xaosflux, and Zero0000. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns?

Hi The Gnome. Do you have have preferred pronouns? Asking as I'm preparing the AN challenge. Thanks. JBchrch talk 15:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. You can use "they". Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Official AN notice

Hi The Gnome. This is the official notice that I've "launched" the challenge at WP:AN. You can find it at Closure review: Portal links on the Main Page's top banner. Thanks again. JBchrch talk 15:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Was it an RFC or not

I'm being told it wasn't an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Gnome/Archive_5&oldid=1071966240"