User talk:Eventhorizon51/Archive 2

Xârâcùù language
Any chance you could undo your closure at Talk:Xârâcùù language? Everyone who expressed an opinion preferred simply "Xârâcùù" as the title. Jenks24 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * is there a reason the close needs to be undone? Why not just modify the close and move it to the title that actually gained consensus (which I can certainly do)? Also, the page was already moved when I closed it, so I thought the discussion was already done and I just added the close templates.  Event horizon51  (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would also be OK. You should always read over a discussion before closing it – if you had done so in this case you would have noticed several people commenting on the move being made, but the RM being kept open because it was done early and discussion about a third title was going. I don't mean this to come across as rude because I appreciate you are trying to help out, but maybe you should consider participating more in the process before you make closures. Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll admit this was a careless mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to look more closely in the future.  Event horizon51  (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your responses here. I'm sorry if I was overly harsh above, but from personal experience I think sometimes it's easier to get a handle on all the nuances of a process as a participant rather than a closer. Just something to consider, it might be different for others. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover right
Since you have closed many RM discussions such as Talk:Xârâcùù and Talk:National security of Colombia, you should consider adding a request for the page mover right at WP:PERM/PM. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think I have gained enough experience yet to be granted the page mover right. I have been helping out with some of the requests at WP:RM but I haven't been there for a very extensive period of time. Also, as you can see from the above threads, I still make errors sometimes. Once I've worked with it more, I'll consider whether I should go for page mover. Besides, I have yet to reach the 3000 edit requirement for that right. Autoconfirmed is good enough for now as it allows me to move pages, so I can still help out at RM where I can.  Event horizon51  (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-move cleanup
Following on from your closure and move at Talk:A League of Their Own (UK game show), there were a few things that needed doing. See, , , , , ,. The navbox edit isn't strictly necessary (although we should try and save the dabbers such as as much work as possible), but the rest definitely are. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about why I've made any of those edits. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 51 links isn't too bad. Now Daredevil, on the other hand... -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah, speaking of that. (Sorry for the orange bar, Eventhorizon.) Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

=Disagree with Decision to not move National Gallery to National Gallery, London=== The arbitrary nature of these obfuscated decisions baffles me. What is the basis for the decision? I provided evidence that multiple reliable sources, including those linked to the National Gallery, London describe the entity as National Gallery, London: does this not carry weight. I am going to request again reconsideration. If not please justify why you made your decision. Did you read prior discussions and weigh the arguments. If so, where is that discussion?Rococo1700 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors in the discussion believed that the page currently at National Gallery is the WP:PTOPIC for the title. There was no consensus to move the page. For a requested move to be successful, you have to convince the community that the move is necessary. Though you provided evidence, it wasn't enough to convince the other editors who participated in the discussion. That's why the page was not moved. You can request again if you want, but I doubt you will get a different result.  Event horizon51  (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. When I read the votes keep support oppose. I am not certain of your conclusion. Do you think more editors should have been involved. Did you count my vote? Since I restarted this discussion? I strongly believe this should be kicked up to a broader discussion since my conclusion is that the name violates Wikipedia policy.

I think the fact that this keeps coming up suggests that the process is not working. We should offer this up to a Move review perhaps. I do not know how the process of letting a wide number of editors in on the voting. How about having all the editors of National Galleries in the world be informed of the vote. If I do this, would I be canvasing. If so, then lest kick this up to Move Review. Again, Wikipedia relies on authoritative sources for its information. Google and the National Library of Congress are authoritative sources in my opinion, and both qualify this as National Gallery, London. In addition, a bibliography search finds ample if not a majority of the sources qualify the name as such. Whether the Gallery or not qualifies this, is not my concern. I do not think this Move review was correctly decided when your read the commentary. I do not think enough editors commented. This process did not work well.

Example of the tally 1) "Keep, or 2nd best National Gallery, London" - judge that as you will 2) "Support the addition of natural disambiguation and disambig page at the base name." In my opinion this is a move. 3) "Support the proposed move" In my opinion this is a move. 4) "Oppose" the move 5) "Keep as is" 6) "Keep" 7) "Oppose the London gallery is the primary topic for this name." In my opinion this is a move.

This does not take into account my opinion that started this request. So we have 3 keeps, 3 moves, one keep or move to National gallery, London. Plus my opinion to move. Again, Wikipedia is not political primary, and if you want we can request more input, but this is not enough to close the discussion or if not this is now reason to re-open it againRococo1700 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to take a step back and revisit the Wikipedia policies regarding consensus and the essay outlining what consensus is. There must be agreement among the Wikipedia community for an action to be taken, and this agreement was not achieved during the period of the move discussion. Pushing aggressively after a discussion has concluded is disruptive and does not help the project. If anything, the request was leaning towards not moved because more editors participating in the first move request stated that they opposed the move. I know some of them wrote "keep" instead of "oppose", but it means the same thing here: they want the article "kept" at the current title. If we count all the !votes, it would be 5 opposes to 3 supports (including yours).  Event horizon51  (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Eventhorizon51 1) I disagree with your math, I count 4 move and 4 keep, with one wavering. 2) I have read the consensus and would remind you to read it also. Below the discussions of contests, majority, etc it states: As I cite in my objection to the move decision, this title does not fit WP:PrimaryTopic, please read that
 * When in doubt, defer to the policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors.
 * This is not just a majority vote, when the math is so close, that should be an indication to keep to discussion open, rather than claim it is a settled issue. The reason this question is brought up again and again by different editors should raise your curiosity as to why. Also when you say more editors participating in first discussion, how many of them overlap with the present discussion. Also what I am advocating is to return to something closer to the original title of this article, which appears to have been arbitrarily moved and the last discussion failed to revert this arbitrary change.

Again, I recommend you review the nature of the prior discussion. I have requested your decision be reversed at Move review.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that you feel very strongly about this, but the community ultimately decides what should be done. Let's just wait and see how the move review and second move request turn out. However, I ask that you respect whatever the outcome is and not push this any further regardless of what the result is. That would be disruptive and counterproductive to both your argument and the project as a whole.  Event horizon51  (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My plan for moving the title from National Gallery to National Gallery, London
I have no idea how the Move review is settled or on what basis. It seems to have devolved into an argument about whether we have an argument.

I will wait till Christmas, and re-open the discussion.

I fear I did not open the discussion to enough editors. I think we should set up a series of facts that need to be accepted before we can say that state the WP:PrimaryTopic argues one way or another. Then the discussion will be less mushy about why this should be changed. I am going to post a neutral statement on all the talk pages of Galleries and Art groups and nomenclature groups, and lets get a clear discussion started on the topic of whether specific places or specific institutions should have ownership of common names as regards this institution. I will likely make the move first and then ask others to justify why it should be moved back according to criteria without merely saying: "the way things are is the way things are" or that it is WP:PrimaryTopic, just because they say so, when I have argued using evidence that it is not. I think "holy cows" are difficult to slaughter. This name has become a holy cow.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Avatar 2 (2015 Film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avatar 2 (2015 Film). Since you had some involvement with the Avatar 2 (2015 Film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Youtube Project
Hi Eventhorizon51,

My name’s Alex. I’m a student at American University, and I’m working on a project on Wikipedia and Youtube. I noticed you made a relatively large amount of edits to the List of Youtubers Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could get your input on a few questions.

1. After talking to a few Wikipedians and doing some research, it seems as though Youtubers have a harder time obtaining a Wikipedia page and/or higher quality pages than other “traditional” professions. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why do you think this is?

2. What could Wikipedia change to better accommodate notable figures from newer platforms like Youtube? What could Youtube do to better live up to Wikipedia standards?

3. If you could change the guidelines on Notability in any way, what changes would you make and why? If not, why do you think they’re stable enough that future societal progression could still be covered equally?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Ah2681a (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to share some of my thoughts on this topic.
 * 1. I would agree that Youtubers have a harder time obtaining Wikipedia pages. To me, this is not surprising. Compared to the "traditional" professions, Youtubers have a very niche audience. The most subscribed Youtuber has just under 55 million subscribers as of writing this comment, whereas the A-list celebrities can have hundreds of millions of followers on just a single one of their social media accounts. There's no doubt that the more traditional professions have a bigger following than Youtubers. I think this alone can explain much of the flak they sometimes get on Wikipedia. Youtube is an internet platform, and the internet is a very recent development in the grand scale of human history. Since Wikipedia is more dedicated to covering topics with long-term significance (to use a Wikipedia phrase), I think it'll be a while before Youtubers are given detailed and in-depth coverage. Being the most up-to-date internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia has done a pretty good job of covering notable figures from new platforms in my opinion, considering the fact that other encyclopedias barely cover internet celebrities at all. I think it will only get better from here.
 * 2. One thing I think Wikipedia could take a shot at is reach out to young people in real life and try to get them to contribute to the source of information they likely use most. One of the best ways to do that, I think, would be to get some student organizations on college campuses dedicated to improving Wikipedia. This website is very well known by students everywhere, but very few think to make their own contributions to it. I believe some gears will definitely start turning in young people's heads if they see a club for Wikipedia represented in an activities fair on their college campus. As for what Youtube could do, I think content creators on the site could arrange more real-life meetups with their viewers. There are a good deal of Youtubers with large followings who have never met their fans in person. Frequent gatherings of people to see their favorite Youtuber in a big city would definitely raise some eyebrows among people who aren't as familiar with Youtube. Something like this would let people know that their presence isn't exclusively online and that their actions affect real people.
 * 3. I don't think I would change the notability guidelines. I think they are very reasonable the way they are and I would not think a topic is suitable for inclusion if even one aspect of the general notability guideline were unmet. Notability requirements are based on the subject's coverage in reliable sources, and reliable sources come out with new and updated information almost constantly. Thus, I think the current notability guidelines are definitely stable.
 *  Event horizon51  (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Eventhorizon51, I really appreciate your insight :)
 * Ah2681a (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit in Article titles
re this: the intended links to disambig pages must *always* use "XXX (disambiguation)" or "XXX (disambiguation)|XXX" style. This is because we have a bot which searches for unintended use of links to disambig pages, such as Friendly Fire and sends the editor who created it a notice prompting to resolve the ambiguity, like this: User_talk:Staszek_Lem. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for letting me know.  Event horizon51  (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Invitation
Invinciblewalnut (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC).)

July 28: You're invited! Food Deserts & Food Policy in Indianapolis editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)

March 17: You're invited! Indiana Women in the Arts editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)