User talk:Asukite/Archives/2023/December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Asukite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

mom_ki_ladali_777

2409:4085:1E92:C274:0:0:8709:C214 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

Comix: Bold comics for a new age

Essay: I am going to die

Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Mount Aspiring / Tititea

Kia ora, could you please elaborate on your recent close over at the above page? I don't see anywhere near enough justification to move the page based on the discussion, as the users in favour were almost entirely just votes rather than actually explaining a position, and even if they were counted then it's still reasonably even. Given the discussion hadn't been relisted once, it seems fairly premature. Turnagra (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I generally count "just votes" by established editors as an indicator of consensus, if nothing else. While not explaining a position, they do indicate agreement, which is ultimately what we are looking for. By numbers, we have 5 for to 3 or 2 against, depending on whether you count Stuartyeates whose argument wasn't very compelling (but is worth counting if we are going to count the rest)

Numbers alone don't indicate consensus, but between that and the arguments given, a "moved" closure seemed appropriate. That said, if you or anybody else has anything to add, I'm happy to revert my closure, as ultimately the only goal is to get the best title, and there really isn't any rush to get there. ASUKITE 17:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - that's understandable, but I still think that in this situation (where so many of the comments are based off a single argument and the move hasn't been relisted once) that a move is premature. If you'd be okay with reverting your close I'd greatly appreciate that! Turnagra (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The "single argument" was the only that needed to be made as it referenced the evidence in sources and Wikipedia's policies. I see no reason why this should have been relisted, and I don't expect my !vote to be discarded just because it references a well-made point by another editor. No solid reason was given as to why that argument was wrong and the original close should stand. — Amakuru (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and the replies should count. I won’t complain if somebody else wants to close this (which our policies allow) - the argument in question seemed the most compelling and I have confidence the move will end up settling the same way, but flip-flopping my closure will probably cause more harm than good. I just need to have more confidence in my close next time. ASUKITE 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.