Talk:Yuna Ogata

Merger proposal
I am proposing merging/redirecting this article into Dialogue (group), which seemed to be the consensus at the AfD. Pinging, , , , ,. 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+.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per NLH5 &#126;~ 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)


 * Note that I have reverted Link20XX's improper close of this merge discussion. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, Link20XX as an involved editor may only close this discussion "if there is unanimous consent to merge" which there is not and, in fact, the close "should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion". Finally, I note that the nominator failed to follow the steps in WP:MERGETEXT to move the content to Dialogue (group) and tag it correctly. DCsansei (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGECLOSE (which is not a policy) says uncontroversial, not unanimous, and I don't think just one editor in opposition is enough. Regarding your other point, WP:ATD-R explicitly allows redirecting based on a talk discussion, which is what the participants preferred. But whatever, it has become abundantly clear that you won't listen to anything I say and will just revert it in two weeks, so I will try to get the input of a neutral party. Link20XX (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the portion which I copy/pasted clearly says "unanimous consent". DCsansei (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the next sentence says "uncontroversial", so perhaps that should be clarified. Whatever the case, below I proposed having a second AfD to finally end this, since it doesn't seem like anything else will convince you. Link20XX (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is so important to you but I wouldn't object to that or even a new merge proposal without canvassing (although I acknowledge you did also canvass those who voted keep, not sure I was skipped) which you allow to run its course until it's closed by an uninvolved editor. I seem to remember reading that six months is the requisite time to wait between AfDs but I don't know where I read that.
 * My objections are to (a) saying a no consensus close at AfD "seemed" to have have a consensus in favor of merge/redirect (if that were the case, you should take it to deletion review since the closing admin got it wrong), (b) selective canvassing, which admittedly may not have been quite as selective but still unsure why I was left off, (c) improperly closing a discussion that you started and were the driving force behind rather than leaving it for an uninvolved editor to close, and (d) skipping WP:MERGETEXT (would essentially require writing a bio of each of the Dialogue members to keep that article from giving undue weight to Yuna). While not directly relevant here, I also fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia's tendency to delete entries where the subject isn't in a English speaking country, particularly those like Japan where the media market/culture is quite different; it takes a few mins reading Japanese political news to see that what would be a full-length feature in English media is a paragraph or two in Japan which I believe should be accounted for when measuring "significant coverage".
 * Given the above and the 3O below, I suppose our options here are:
 * to walk away from this article
 * deletion review of original AfD close
 * new AfD
 * new merge proposal
 * DCsansei (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding point D, if the discussion favors redirecting over merging, that is explicitly allowed per WP:ATD-R. I also agree that it is a shame that coverage for these subjects are hard to find, but notability is a firm policy that every article must follow. Regarding, WP:RENOM (while not a policy) suggests to wait two months after a no-consensus close and six months after a keep close before renominating. As far as what I plan to do, two months from when the original was closed is not too long from now, so I might renominate it then. However, I will be walking away until that happens. Link20XX (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure although I still do not see how Airblue + Dialogue wouldn't constitute 2 notable ensembles per NMUSIC DCsansei (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because Airblue is not a notable group. The consensus is that groups formed around one IP are very rarely notable, like with 3-nen E-gumi Utatan. Link20XX (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Closure of discussion
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)
 * 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)
 * I would point out that "ignore all rules" doesn't mean "ignore policies to bludgeon the result you want without consensus". You can't keep continually asserting a consensus for what you want when the only previous discussion on this matter was closed as no consensus by an admin. You, as an involved party, don't get to close a discussion that you started with your preferred outcome after you canvassed users for the result you wanted. DCsansei (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not bludgeon any discussion, especially this one where my only comments were opening it and replying to you. I will note that the AfD found that any editor may open a merge discussion, which is exactly what I did. I addressed the allegation of canvassing above, but since you clearly missed it, I also pinged someone who voted keep in the AfD multiple times. Believe me when I said that I have never had any intention of canvassing and I am concerned you're accusing me of having WP:BADFAITH without any proper evidence. Link20XX (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: 3O here. Don't close discussions you're involved in. asilvering (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is more here to discuss. What do you think about the use of WP:IAR or the consensus in the above discussion (since you seem to think I was in the wrong). Link20XX (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Link20XX, I said "don't close discussions you're involved in". That means don't. It doesn't mean "don't close them, unless you're sure you're right" or "don't close them, unless you want to WP:IAR." It means don't. I don't see how you can possibly interpret a merge proposal with four participants, one of whom objects, as something so completely and utterly uncontroversial that you can close it despite being the nominator of both the AfD (which closed as no consensus) and the merge proposal. -- asilvering (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt the close was appropriate considering that it hadn't gotten any further comments in over two weeks, but you seem to disagree. So how about you close it, or at least give whether you think this person is notable. Or perhaps we could renominate it at AfD, since it has been nearly two months anyways. Would that be okay? Link20XX (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my advice - not a formal 3O, no intent to boss you around, just advice:
 * Step away from the article. This is not an urgent issue or any other kind of crisis.
 * Once you have stayed away from the article for a good while, if no one else has dealt with it in the interim, go ahead and AfD it again. Two weeks is not a good while. Two months is not a good while.
 * When someone tells you that you are bludgeoning a discussion and not correctly reading consensus, consider it honestly, and apologize for how you've come off, even if you think they have misunderstood your intent. Whatever you do, don't tell them I did not bludgeon any discussion, because if an uninvolved editor would have agreed that you weren't bludgeoning before that comment, they certainly will change their mind after reading it.
 * Don't accuse people of accusing you of having bad faith without any evidence when the other party did not accuse you of bad faith and the evidence is here for everyone to see. (Personally, I do not at all think you have been acting in bad faith, but I also think that it is outrageous to say someone has "no evidence" when they are simply describing their perception of your actions.)
 * Don't use "seem to" when you're referring to unambiguous comments by someone else. It comes off as really disingenuous. I did not seem to think you were in the wrong, or seem to disagree with your close.
 * As far as my opinion as to what should happen next (beyond "step away"), I think the best action would be to clean up the remains of the merge proposal (eg, the tag is still on the article) and act as though it was a no-consensus close. I don't think it would be productive to re-open it or to try to action it right now, because what you've done here has made a serious mess of the discussion. To be clear, while I think it's a serious mess, I don't think it's a serious problem. The worst thing that has happened here is some people got annoyed. Not terribly many people, and not terribly annoyed. We can simply all agree to walk off and cease being annoyed, and someone can try and start the discussion over again once nobody's likely to be annoyed anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I admit that I get too heated sometimes during discussions. Regarding bullet 4, that was in response to being accused of canvassing against policy, but perhaps it was not clear that is what I was referring to, so I apologize on that front. I will step away from this article for now, but I will make no guarantee on how long that will be, just for the immediate future as I also am limiting my time on WP in general due to personal circumstances offwiki. I still don't believe this person meets notability and think this article should be merged, however. And for whatever it's worth, I repeat that I never had any intention of violating any policy. Link20XX (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Minor note: canvassing isn't necessarily bad faith, it's just bad. (I'd guess that most canvassing is done in good faith, actually. If you are doing something because you honestly believe it is the right thing to do and it makes a better encyclopedia, that's good faith. A person can be acting in good faith and still be very, very wrong.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)