User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/CCRM-Table

text for ping
Summary table for Renaming Climate change article Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, and only reflects my personal notes about what I think others said. The closer may or may not look at it. FYI, I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! ~

Minor request for clarification
Hi-- What do you mean by "did not address narrow issue"? I thought the "narrow issue" was that by renaming the climate change article, the term climate change could be used for what most people mean by that term (currently called GW by Wikipedia). Am I misunderstanding the point of the renaming? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question, which I should have anticipated, my apologies! I was referring to WP:Closing discussions and WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages.   A simple WP:NOTVOTE of "Support" or "Opposed" is useful as a starting point, but the closer is supposed to review the reasons on which NOTVOTES are based.   I would elaborate further, but I'd start getting into our particular issue to use as examples, and I don't want to accidentally make leading suggestions.  So instead, I'd just refer you to the two links at the start of my reply, and if you feel inspired to add to the proposal thread to elaborate on your views, please do!  Of if you're happy with your existing comment, that's also great.  All I'm doing is trying to do my best to read it all as though I were in the shoes of an uninvolved editor trying to determine consensus and close the thread.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional column
I think the main point to be made to a closer is that there seems near-universal support for a move away from the status quo. We will have to rely on WP:NOGOODOPTIONS's last paragraph. Can you put in an additional (the first) column? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to add a column. Would a Y/N column with heading "Status quo sucks so bad it must be changed" be appropriate? If not, what would you suggest? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Table is just confusing to me
I don't understand this table really at all. Is a notvote voting no or not voting at all and what are we voting on in the first place? For the second column I think I'm clear that "climate change" as a topic should be the same as Global Warming, is that what you mean? And I have no idea what discussed discardable tangents means. Efbrazil (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These discussions need to be "closed" by an editor who is WP:UNINVOLVED. Granted that is a policy applicable to administrators, but the gist is applicable nonetheless.   Since I am the proposer, I am - obviously - deeply involved, and the table technically means nothing at all.   That said, anyone can challenge their self with "If I were really uninvolved, how would I make sense of all of this to measure WP:CONSENSUS?"  Just because I am the proposer and possibly biased, I can still challenge myself to seek intellectual integrity by playing What if, as in, what if I were tasked with determining an honest consensus here (despite my personal views)?  This table is intended as a tool to help do that.  If I did a crappy job, then ignore it.  If I did a good job, then maybe a closer will find it at least somewhat useful.  That's all it means.


 * So even though I can't close it, I am still allowed to think. To help me (and maybe a closer) think, I am trying to succinctly summarize per WP:OTHERSOPINION regardless of my own opinion.  This table tries to do that.  If people object to how I summarized, then (perhaps) their statement isn't sufficiently clear and an uninvolved editor would benefit from refinements of each editors' statement.  So this table is an attempt to summarize per WP:OTHERSOPINION.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  I'm trying to help your opinion be accurately counted by whomever tries to measure consensus.  Since this is in my userspace, I reserve the right to tweak the table until we are both satisfied that (A) it accurately reflects your boiled-down views in (B) a way I understand.  Also the notion of "discardable" comments flows from the instructions for WP:Closing discussions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm even more confused. The table links to a comment I made several months ago and the table makes no sense to me in the first place. You linked to the table from my talk page so I thought you wanted me to say something about it. Efbrazil (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) THANK YOU for caring
 * (B) I APOLOGIZE for the confusion
 * (C) THANK YOU for patience and your assistance helping my small brain accurately understand!
 * (D) The table links to a comment you made just six day ago, not months ago. Is that true and if that's true how could the table better summarize your views? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ABC: You too! Sorry if I sounded grumpy, I'm really just confused by the table, that's all. D:Oops, you're right about the link, sorry about that, it's just not to what I was expecting and there is some old content there as well. I poked around and I think this link best expresses my views, although it's a bit dated and misses the key point that I promise not to get in the way no matter what is decided:

when you say you're confused by the 2nd column, do you mean the one where I marked you "no"? (If that's the one you meant see the prior thread and the italics I added just before the table as a result of that thread.)  Does that help clear up confusion about the purpose of the table? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggest change: "NotVote" --> "Expressed view (not a vote)"
I think confusion derives from "NotVote" which, literally interpreted, might imply the person did "not vote". You might consider the change I suggest above, or something similar. #ThankYouForYourService —RCraig09 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, however, at this level, I'm assuming familiarity with wiki processes and "notvote" = !Vote = WP:NOTVOTE.... being a term of wiki jargon, my belief is that anyone attempting to close this will be familiar with the concept. `NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After ten years and >6000 edits and involvement in a few skirmishes, I had never seen that link before. Other concerned editors whom you have invited to view might not be at what you perceive to be "at this level". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up here! Now everyone (who thinks to check the talk page) will see it too. It's standard fare for surveys and RFCs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested changes to RCraig09's entry in table
Having reverted my own changes to my entry in the table, I ask that my entry be changed to: If you intend this table be copied to the Article Talk Page for the closer's benefit, it should be based on what people say they said, not only on what you say they said. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's based on WP:OTHERSOPINION. If I can't understand your view so well that I can say it in my own words, rather than yours, then either I'm a jerk or incompetent or motivated by an agenda.  Hopefully you understand that the goal of the table is to TEST mutual understanding, and not just repeat and talk past each other endlessly.  THANK YOU for reverting the table tweaks so I can try to do this, and you can tell me here if I screwed up (again).   All I ask is that you give me space to try to say it in my own words, because that's exactly what a good closer will be trying to do.  This is hopefully a community building excercise that moves us forward, not a fight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see, thanks for calling your supplemented NotVote/explanation to my attention! QUESTION... you said you favor prompt redirect: "CC" --> "GW and CC". Would you please say a little more?  Its a bit confusing because global warming and climate change does not currently exist.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I was certainly not trying to argue, but merely to re-state more concisely what became buried in the Wall(s) of Words on Talk:CC. To answer your question: after "CC" is renamed to "CC(GenCon)" (in effect moving its content), I think the residual "CC" should be immediately converted to a redirect to the content that readers search for and RSs describe when using the term "CC"—which content has long resided within "GW". I think "GW" should be quickly renamed "CC&GW", so that readers searching for either term "CC" or "GW" will immediately arrive at their desired destination where the technical difference between the two terms will be centrally and authoritatively distinguished, thereby resolving longstanding confusion. Symbolically, the redirects would be: "CC"-->"GW&CC" and "GW"-->"GW&CC" (though a temporary "CC"-->"GW" redirect is also OK with me). —RCraig09 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Update
See here. François Robere (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look! May take a bit, there are a lot of open items on my watchlist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note from RM closer (moved from table page)
--- FYI --- I definitely looked at this table as I was closing the discussion! It's so cool to see so many people care so much about getting things right at Wikipedia! Red  Slash  05:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for helping us out doing the close! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)