User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 43

Translate templates
What are you playing at? These templates were NOT designed to be stuck in hiding on talk pages, They are intended to directly encourage editors to translate content. Some articles are so extremely lacking that any translated content is useful. Your actions here indicate that you have little experience in actual transwiki work and how it works. There is absolutely no point in having these tags in the talk pages where few editors look. Most of the articles they are slopped on desperately need content transferred asap and having a big tag presents no major problem. If you genuinely want wikipedia to grow you would see some sense that curbing this transwiki effort as you are attempting to do by hiding its basic function is shameful. Also the google translate link in the template has a function in that you can translate info on another wikipedia and gather more info which is very useful to the casual reader who is looking for more information. We should be maximising our chances of people translating content and reducing the massive gap between us and other wikis on non-anglo subjects not removing the basic mechnaism we already have in place. The casual reader generally does not look in a talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch. I started a discussion about the usefulness of the template, and there was little response. Perhaps it would be helpful to get a wider community input into the template, what it should contain, and where it should be placed. I am strongly in favour of supporting and encouraging editors to build articles from reliable sources, and am a strong advocate of the find template - though I would not advise anyone to place that on the article page. Also, I am not in favour of encouraging the general reader to attempt to translate from one language into another. Using Google translate produces results that can be potentially misleading and so worse than having no translation. Most of the other language wikis explicitly forbid use of Google translate. I left the Google translate function on the template, however, to provide a guideline to what the other article has to offer. The template also has the useful function of placing articles into a category which translation experts can crawl through when looking to do a bit of translation work - and this works if the template is placed on the article or the talkpage. I would like to encourage serious, careful and skilled translators to use other language wikis as potential material. I would like to have links to potential sources/material in the same place - so find and Expand language being together on the talkpage is a good thing not a bad thing.  SilkTork  *Tea time 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your adjustment to the main templates in terms of finding reliable sources to back up translated material (which I agree with). But moving all to talk page is a killer. Might I suggest that it is written into the documentation instead to only apply tags to articles which desperately need translated material? E.g for longer articles which may still be improved move the tags to the talk pages but for sub stubs keep them in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and shrink the templates. Just leave one sentence at the top, the rest are guideline instructions. By shrinking to a "Guidelines" you can document and assert that text must be translated and verifiable sources to support the text. This should solve the issue and also make it less of an eye sore. I admire your approach to GAs I must admit as I myself think it one of the most important steps to make on wikipedia in the quality. Only we have so many stubs and missing articles which desperately need some form of work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said here that I would do that and see how it looked. My time is limited at the moment to coming on to Wikipedia in short bursts, and there a number of other things I am committed to do, but I will get around to it shortly.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand language
Hi! While I was on a brief hiatus from editing it looks like you and Blofeld were discussing (arguing about?) the expand language template, which is my baby more or less. :) Were your edits to the template in response to any specific issues you were seeing that were caused by the template? I haven't really seen many (or any?) instances of machine translation copy-pasting or translation of bad-quality articles in response to the template. If there are examples, I'd be interested in seeing them. I made some more changes to the template based on your suggestions (essentially just adding a [show] drop-down like Template:Wikify with some more instructions).  Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested at University of International Relations
I've opened a RfC at Talk:University of International Relations regarding some content that an editor has repeatedly removed for a variety of not-very-good reasons. Other editors may weigh in on this at some point, but I wanted to invite you to take a look lest the conversation stagnate. It would be nice to put this to rest. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 13:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry for drawing you into the murky world of poorly translated Chinese universities. I've responded with a clarification about some of the different schools. By the way, now that you've done this sleuthing on the CICIR, I feel obligated to create an article for it.Homunculus (duihua) 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Video arcade
Excuse me, where was the discussion to change the name from Video arcade to Amusement arcade? Seems like there should have been something on the talk page.--Asher196 (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about amusement arcades so it made sense to give it that name - I didn't think the move would be contentious so there was no discussion. Do you feel that the previous name was more accurate?  SilkTork  *Tea time 14:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion copied to Talk:Amusement_arcade.  SilkTork  *Tea time 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

List of countries
Please see Talk:List of sovereign states. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Opened discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10.  SilkTork  *Tea time 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to point you in the right direction, this comment is probably connected to the discussion happening on this talk page.  Night w   11:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles - Trial
Hi. Just letting  you  know that  following  your suggestion, the  discussion  has been moved to  Wikipedia space, restarted and and listed on  Cent, RfC, and the VP, and will  take place  here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hey, why you delete the article Total Influence. What's wrong? I tried, but you have erased all. Dr.ON-fog (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article did not meet our inclusion criteria. While the online game that was the subject of the article does exist, we don't have articles on everything or everyone that exists, only those topics which are regarded as worthwhile or notable. To decide if a topic is notable we rely on WP:Reliable sources having written significantly about the topic, and then use what the sources have said, and cite the sources. If an editor finds an article that looks as though it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria the article will be listed for at least seven days on either Articles for deletion or Proposed deletion to get a second opinion. I examined the article after the seven days had expired and agreed with the nominator that there were not enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic, therefore I deleted it following the appropriate process. The article as written described the game, but did not explain why it was notable, nor have any reviews or comments on it. The article did not use reliable sources but used the contributor's own observations which is against our policy of WP:OR. If you wish to write about this game you could consult Article creation and use the Article wizard. Many people find it helps if they edit a few existing articles before creating a new one. And others find it helps to read some of the guidelines and policies that we have, and to join in with discussions. We are always in need of new editors, and don't wish to put people off. But we also need to ensure that new articles are of a minimum standard. We do have problems in some topic areas, such as Massively multiplayer online games, where most of the articles are of a poor standard, and don't have sufficient reliable sources. An editor who knows this topic well, and knows the publications where such games are written about, would be a valuable asset to us.  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As you are all difficult. First of all, I did this article based on similar, there are here and no one removes it. I wrote as well as the others. For some reason no other sources are not seen. Secondly, it is an exact copy of my own articles from the Russian Wikipedia. There is no problem here, all the standards. Third, I am not a native English and asked for help in the development of the article. But, apparently, it's easier to remove than a help. And anyway, you say that you are looking for new editors, but do not attempts to help. Dr.ON-fog (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the points you are making. Unfortunately there are a number of poor articles on Wikipedia, and the topic area of online games, as I said above, contains many poor articles. It is a matter of concern to us that there are so many poor articles, especially when editors such as yourself are using them as role models. Unfortunately Wikipedia is staffed by unpaid volunteers who work on this project in their spare time. Most editors, such as yourself, will tend to work on topics that interest them, and will often prefer to do fun things like create articles, than have to review, improve and if necessary delete poor quality articles. Such is human nature. I don't think the language of the article was an issue, it was that the topic itself was not seen as notable. The Russian article is also unsourced. It would be helpful if you found sources for that.


 * I understand and sympathise with your frustration. What do you think about the suggestions I have made that you consult some pages that give help and advice on creating articles, and that you make yourself familiar with some of our policies and guidelines? We are continually looking at the issue of retention of new editors, and are looking at ways of helping editors to write articles that won't get deleted. We wish to encourage the sort of editors who are patient, collegiate, and follow guidelines rather than simply anyone who wants to edit. I would be interested to hear from you if you are the sort of editor we are looking for. It appears that you are willing to engage in discussion, and that you look at other articles for guidance. These are positive qualities.


 * From our discussion so far, and the links I have provided, do you feel you are the sort of person who can edit well at Wikipedia? And do you feel you know enough now to know why your article was deleted and what you have to do to ensure a new article you make doesn't get deleted in future?  SilkTork  *Tea time 16:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Eastbourne
Many thanks for your continued help with the above article. Mikeo1938 (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
 * 2) User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 3) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
 * 4) User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 5) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
 * 6) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the db-author or db-self template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo
I've been working on Sutton Hoo a bit and cut down its size, adding a few things and generally tightening the prose style, using your review comments as a guide where they helped. Any chance of a short, sharp look at it to suggest what else should be done? --Hel-hama (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read through it, but on glancing at it, it is clear it needs trimming. The suggestion on the talkpage of creating an article, Sutton Hoo treasures, and moving some content there is a good one. There are also too many images - and some very poor quality images of the site. These could be reduced. There are some very crisp, clear and useful drawn maps of the burials. These are excellent and should be retained. The Bibliography is dauntingly huge. We aim to provide a useful summary of human knowledge, not exhaustive lists of books. This is a general encyclopaedia article not a scholarly textbook for university students. The article needs to be written with the general reader in mind. It needs to be clear and concise - as pointed out in a recent study: Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-11/In the news. We need to avoid "information overload".  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Willie Nelson
Thanks for taking the large amount of time to review the article. Your amendments where not severe. After all the idea is to improve the article, and even though it takes long time to work on it, its really necessary because its a topic that attracts pretty much interest. As usual, you did an excellent work as a reviewer. Hope to be working on another review with you sometime in the future.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   15:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I did find that particular review hard work. I have a GAR to finish off now, then I will take a break from reviewing for a while. But, certainly, if you have something that needs a review in a few months time I'll take a look at it.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Pointless AFD nomination User talk:Dream Focus
What is the point of this? Articles_for_deletion/Low_poly There is no such thing as a procedural listing. You don't nominate things to get attention. Use the talk page, or go to the Wikiprojects for computer or artwork related things if no one is around to talk to you. You state "I am neither supporting nor opposing deletion", which isn't possible. To send something to AFD, you must support its deletion.  D r e a m Focus  02:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite accurate. AfD (read 'article for discussion') can be used when deletion/keeping  is not  clear. I  use it  often myself. SilkTork's rationale was perfectly  relevant, even if the discussion  gets closed as 'keep'. You  may  wish to  adjust  your tone to  be more cordial - discuss the issues and not  the editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD stands for Article for Deletion. There has never been any consensus to use it for anything else.   D r e a m Focus  09:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kudpung is right, articles are brought to AfD for discussion when there is some doubt about their status; the person bringing the article to AfD does not have to have a strong opinion either way. The purpose of the AfD is to establish consensus for what to do with the article if current consensus is unclear.
 * A point of interest. When you clicked on the edit button in the AfD, a message came up which says "commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive". I'm curious if you noticed that message. If no, then I wonder what we can do to make the notice clearer. If yes, then why you still made a comment on the nomination/nominator rather than the article. I have no problem with you coming to my talkpage to ask me questions or to let off a bit of steam, though as I am a supporter of Wikipedia's structure which encourages concerns to be raised and aired rather than shouted down, then I would like to see AfD kept as calm and neutral as possible. Behaviour which might inhibit people from bringing concerns to AfD is not acceptable.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are abusing the process and wasting everyone's time with nonsense. And I commented on your deletion rational.  No one was shouting at you, you just misread things.   D r e a m Focus  09:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) See Articles for deletion and Deletion_policy   D r e a m Focus  10:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am curious about, and you can help me with this, is if you saw the notice or not. Did you see the notice?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the discussion here only. And follow the proper procedures in the future please.  No sense discussing this farther.   D r e a m Focus  10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you are uncomfortable with a record being kept on your talkpage of uncivil behaviour? I can understand that. However, I would appreciate it if you explained if you saw the message saying that you should not make personal comments. And if you did see it, why you chose to ignore the advice, and comment on the nomination rather than the article.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no possible reason to have the same conversation in two places. No one does that. Some people do. I have been doing it for some years now.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time|undefined   And I commented on your actions, as they were relevant to the AFD.  At Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sovereign_states an administrator told you "Issues regarding content disputes should be settled on talk pages, not here" when closing it.  Everyone else there said Keep.  You seem to not know what AFD is for.  Kindly check the links I provided and read through them before making additional AFDs.   D r e a m Focus  10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful as part of the ongoing process of improving Wikipedia if you were able to answer the question. AfD is an important element of Wikipedia, and I have played a part in creating the structure of the guidelines that you are pointing me to. It is known that sometimes people make personal comments during an AfD rather than commenting on the issue, which can be disruptive. The notice (which I also helped edit) is there to remind people not to make such comments. Now either you didn't see the notice, in which case it's effectiveness as a reminder needs to be looked into to, or you were aware of it but decided to ignore it. It would genuinely be helpful if you could assist in making AfD a more effective process by engaging in a discussion about it. Though I understand if you don't want to, and I won't ask you again.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have closed as speedy keep. Dream Focus, while inartful in his approach, is convincing in his argument, and besides the initial approach, has been helpful and concerned. SilkTork's accusations poison the well, and keep us from discussing the matters at heart with a distraction.

When a PROD fails the next step shouldn't be automatically an AfD, it can be a number of other less extreme measures, and. As the snowball AfD discussion shows, the PROD failed for a reason, there is consensus that the topic needs to be addressed in wikipedia. That it warrants its own article or as a section of another article is an open question that hopefully will be discussed in the article's talk. I invite all of you to take it there.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed that you had the confidence to do that, especially as it was your first AfD close. Well done. Some points: Technically it wasn't a Speedy Keep as it didn't meet the criteria of WP:Speedy keep and it had had seven days discussion. Also, while it does happen, it is not acceptable to encourage bad faith comments, let alone make one yourself, especially when you are failing to understand the principle behind the nomination. I would also suggest you check for typos. I sometimes make mistakes myself, and have to go back and make amends. "then belong" should be "they belong"; it is best to be consistent - you have "merger discussions" and "Merge discussion" - the second one is the more common and fits with Wikipedia usage; and "Merge discussion in article is recommended" is unclear. Notifying the nominator of the outcome is a nice touch.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response and comments. Let me clarify and elaborate some things:


 * 1) Not my first close, although my first in a long time. It did meet the criteria of Speedy Keep, specifically point 2 and 4 of the speedy keep criteria, besides the general principle that no un-involved editor argued for deletion (and in a first for me, not even the yourself as nominator agreed with deletion). Failure of editors to close earlier is a reflection of the busy nature of AfD. Had I seen this article nom on July 12, I would have speedy kept then. It was not a Keep because the nomination was a failure, and closing it as Keep would have been admitting that the nomination was a legitimate one as per process. You clearly disagree with this, so you can either grudgingly accept it (and perhaps get some lessons), or you can seek reversal using the Deletion Review process.


 * 2) I do not fail to understand the principle behind your nomination, I just think it is a wrong principle that wastes the time of the AfD process, and furthermore that the AfD, by your own comment in the nomination, and now in this thread, was not because the article met any deletion criteria, but to make a point of resolving an ambiguity by using the AfD process, one of the things that the AfD process is precisely not to be used for.


 * 3) Need I remind you aof the common sense principle that failure to agree is not necessarily a failure to understand. In addition, disagreement doesn't imply a personal attack or commentary on personal capacity or knowledge. Methinks ya needs to chill, brah.


 * 4) We are both experienced editors (although for life reasons I come and go amd have less edits than you, who arrived about two years before you did - albeit initially anon, back when being anon wasn't so bad), so I am going to cut to the chase: you are wikilawyering. Stop doing that. "Merge discussion" and "merger discussion" and "discuss merging" and etc are English language terms that anyone in good faith can understand. This is not a bureaucracy, and this is not a play court, what matters is what is being said not how, and its about the content of an encyclopedic compendium of human knowledge, not some role-playing game. Again this is a distraction from the central point, which you have not addressed at all.You can go back to doing wheelies in the circle jerk or whatever. Just don't destroy content cause you don't know it oryou don't like it, or we mispell, or we dont use the "correct" legal language. That has always been considered bullshit in Wikipedia. Ask ArbCom.


 * 5) I suggest you take a look at Polylogism, an article that has much worse issues that Low poly ever has and for which I have raised issues for over two years, yet never considered AfD to resolve them or to make a point. What I do is be bold in editing and to raise concerns and argue them in the article talk page, trusting my fellow editors to do the right thing, and if they don't then use DR and etc. There is no deadline, brah. However, keeping/merging and improving is always in my view better than deleting and forgetting.


 * What you are doing is pointy, and pointing this out is neither a personal attack nor a lack of assuming good faith - people can be disruptive in good faith and pointing out negative behavior is not a personal attack if the behavior is true. But being pointy is criteria 2 for speedy keep and you are being disruptive even if you don't realize it.


 * In the future, please keep responses to anything I say (and perhaps consider it for all other editors) to a single talk page. We have a talkback (TB) system, learn to use it. With Twinkle its actually painless. Since you duped the posting in your talk to mine, I am responding in both places, but please from now on keep your responses in your talk page, notifying me via TB if need be. --Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I've not read it all. I do get the distinct impression, however, that you believe you are right, and that my pointing out your mistakes will make no difference. So be it. I wish you well, and if you do at some point need my assistance I will be happy to help.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your candid admission that you haven't read what I said, yet presume to know what I said. Among those things I said was that I would like you to us TB when talking to me, rather than duping threads. Since you ignored or didn't read this part, I have reverted your posting in my talk page. The only mistake I did was a minor spelling one, which I fixed. Its is you, however, who doesn't seem to realize your mistakes, and unfortunately probably won't, if responding without reading first is any indication. My only concern is that you follow procedure that is there for a reason, and understand that just because you disagree with the process, doesn't mean you can disrupt to make a point - even if you have access to administrative tools. Of course, if you need any assistance I would be happy to provide it also.--Cerejota (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand clearly that you disagreed with my taking the article to AfD, though I am less clear on why you feel that I made a mistake in doing that, or why you feel it was disruptive. I am also not clear on why this matters so much to you, but I will endeavour to explain my thinking. I was going through Category:Proposed deletion (as I am at the moment), and deleting expired Prods that met the appropriate criteria, removing the Prod tags from articles that I could clean up, and taking articles to AfD where they did not meet Prod criteria but there was some remaining doubt. This is, as you will note in Prod, recommended procedure. When I came upon Low poly, it had been proposed for deletion by User:Thumperward, an experienced and respected admin, for valid concerns, and it was an unsourced article. However, I did a search and found some sources, so I didn't think it met a straightforward deletion; however, the main source I did find did seem to be more of minor mention as part of a larger picture, than something significant enough for a full standalone article. The topic, and the nature of the sources, along with Thumperward's rationale led me to feel that this was a topic that would benefit from a wider discussion. I had no strong views either way. I felt it was a borderline case. So I followed the guideline and put it on AfD for wider discussion, explaining the circumstances, and then put the cite I had found in the article. This is standard procedure. I and other admins on Prod patrol have been doing this for years. Does that help you at all?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you respecting my wishes to centralize discussion, and I do invite you to consider the TB system via twinkle, its powerful, easy, and helpful.


 * That said, to the meat:


 * 1) Motives - this matters so much to me for the same reason you have tens of thousands of edits, and I have thousands of them. While for a variety of reasons I am not able to participate as much as I want in the project, Wikipedia is the awesomest app on the intartubez. So what happens in it, matters to me. AN dnot just topics I like or know about, but specially the topics I don't know anything about or even don't give a fuck about. Since I have found some time to restart participation, and have been rather slowly easing in, I set about going to the Article Rescue Squad page, and saw this listed, and saw the AfD and said "you know, this is a wrong way to fix issues". So I did what I did.
 * 2) Process - you take this view of process, and I have understood it from the beginning (although, I didn't know any of the background you are giving, only the nom, which is why I felt confident my lack of previous involvement - a criteria for me closing the afd - was rock solid). So lets unpack this box:


 * Where I think we have agreement:


 * a) Article has issues of notability, sourcing, and original research/synthesis.
 * b) Article status regarding possible deletion is ambiguous
 * c) That the topic covered by the article is not a hoax nor has any commercial or other nefarious intent
 * d) That the topic is indeed a neologism


 * Where I think we disagree:


 * a) AfD is the correct way to bring about a resolution to these issues
 * b) That there was no alternative to AfD to resolve the ambiguities
 * c) That because something similar has been done by PROD patrollers it doesn't mean it is correct or even advisable in every case.


 * While another editor has made a constructive criticism I accept of the way I worded my closure, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that this was a good way to resolve article issues. While you provide a good narrative for a PROD-to-AfD process, this is a general rather than specific point, and there has been a tendency, in particular among set of AfD focused admins (and less commonly, editors), to see this as the *only* process. It isn't. A much better process is the PROD-Discussion-Wikiproject attention-Discussion-Merge/Afd. And there are other ways too. I am not saying your narrative is abstractly and in general wrong (similar things are done in PROD patrol). I am saying that in this case it was not in my eyes cool, and furthermore, the discussion led me to believe that this was pointy: skipping the merger process to use AfD for something it was not meant to be used for. You say this is the usual way, I question that. There have been many reversals of this process in the past, and while I am not campaign it against it in general (I am not a PROD patroller, and I have the sense to respect specialists), in this specific case the nom was unconvincing, and in particular the exchange with Dream Focus did you in - I found him convincing and you unconvincing. You still have not convinced me why AfD, in this case, was called for or explained why this is preferable over a talk page discussion or a merger discussion, other than an appeal to "that's how it is done" which you and I know is not true. A lesson for you is to never get too comfortable with the drudgery of wikipedia work, because what works in one article might not work in the next...


 * I hope this answers your concerns. If it doesn't by all means ask.--Cerejota (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather just let this one alone now.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)