Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

For general advice on closing discussions, see Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions.

"Wikipedia:DfD" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion or Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion.

This forum is for discussion closers to discuss their evaluation of consensus in preparation for closing specific discussions, such as pending XfD, RM, or RfC closes. Any editor who intends to close a discussion, and has concerns about how consensus in that discussion should be assessed is welcome to initiate a discussion here.

Please note that this is not a place to discuss the merits of the underlying matter. It is solely for discussing whether a consensus can be discerned in a discussion, and how the discussion should be closed on the basis of a finding of consensus, or of an absence of consensus. Editors who are involved in discussions of the merits should generally avoid engaging in extensive discussion of how consensus in those discussions should be interpreted.

This is also not a venue for review of discussions that have already been closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Move review or Wikipedia:Deletion review. This forum is also not for requests that a discussion be closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Closure requests.

Interpretation of "widespread consensus"

Dear editors,

I am eyeing to close this discussion. In short, editors want to modify the article size guideline but without resorting to an RfC, which I personally know are tedious to maintain and drain a lot of our time. A user (VQuakr) objected by saying that with 14 editors, there is not enough quorum to say that the change gained widespread consensus (It could be 14-0 and you still wouldn't have quorum for this.)

WP:PGCHANGE does not require RfCs to change guidelines but it does require that the changes either be done "with no objection" or by "widespread consensus". There are a couple of objections here but not to the level that would prevent the finding of rough consensus. But does such discussion have enough participation to have the widespread consensus label? That's my question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, those affected by guidance (be it a process, procedure, or formal guideline or policy) should be made aware of proposed changes and given the opportunity to discuss and influence the proposal. For better or worse, in this case, personally I feel that an advertised request for comments would be a better way to reach more interested parties, as it would help establish a broader consensus view of the community's opinions on something that does affect many editors. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I find that a lot of objections related to RFCs are based on an editor's personal perception that their side is "losing". We all believe that our own views are sensible and rational and proportionate and at least somewhat well-informed, and we generally trust the other experienced editors to be approximately as sensible and rational, etc. as ourselves, so if the result of the discussion is clearly different from my view, then we start by assuming that something has gone very wrong with the discussion: too few participants, the wrong/canvassed/biased participants, an unclear question, a non-neutral question, etc.

I sometimes wish for some statistics on RFCs, e.g., how many (how few) people participate in a typical RFC. Experienced editors often have an inaccurate understanding of Wikipedia. We think that 500 edits is almost nothing, although 99% of editors never make that many. We think that a discussion with "only" 14 editors is too small to determine consensus, but few discussions get even half that many participants. This can lead to misunderstandings about what's normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Most discussions involve a very small number of people, and thus the outcome can vary depending on who participates. I think many editors understand this when they contest decisions, hoping for a different outcome with a (at least in part) different set of participants. For better or worse, English Wikipedia's version of consensus-based decision making relies on extrapolating from a small, self-selected sampling of editors who happen to become aware of a discussion. It's not easy to proceed otherwise when trying to use consensus to make decisions, but combining this with English Wikipedia's "consensus can change" tradition means it's hard to build on past decisions and move forward, because everything is subject to being re-visited at any time. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say, however, that the referenced discussion saw better participation than a lot of recent XfD discussions. I do think that any admin (and indeed any editor) is free to advertise discussions on more well-attended noticeboards, of done neutrally. BD2412 T 01:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect to be able to find the numbers right now, but if memory serves, a couple of years ago, someone determined that AFDs in the past (10–15 years ago?) typically had three !votes, and now (i.e., a couple of years ago) they typically had four or five !votes. We've had about 300 pages land at WP:DRV, and about 20,000 AFDs in 2023. That's an appeal rate of about 1 in 70, and since most of the decisions are unchanged after DRV, an error rate of less than 1%. We probably only need a few !votes to make the right decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Democratic Labour Party (Australia) split

The Talk:Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)#Split:_To_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia,_1980) request seems to me to have already passed, several responses have shown their support over multiple months and yet the discussion hasn't closed. The original user who proposed the split has said they wish for the discussion to be closed before they split the article, and have formally requested that the discussion be closed in said discussion. A response from an administrator on the discussion would be appreciated. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: If I'm understanding correctly, this may be better suited for Wikipedia:Closure requests. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll send this there. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals

Pending in the Wikipedia:Requested moves backlog now are a half dozen separate move requests, mostly multi-moves, encompassing 55 articles on the names of royal figures, all seeking to remove specific regional or national identifiers from the names (e.g., "Charles XII of Sweden → Charles XII"; "Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Pharasmanes III"). These discussions have all drawn heavy participation, and spirited debate. In my experience, any close is going to draw furious objections by those who disagree with the outcome, so I think it behooves us to come up with a plan for closing all of these. My reading of the discussions is that there is an absence of clear consensus for any of the proposed moves, but I am open to differing interpretations. BD2412 T 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 I haven't read all the discussions, but for the one at Talk:Charles XI of Sweden it seems to me that most opposers of the move are not seriously trying to argue that the move isn't what WP:NCROY supports (or making other arguments specific to that page title), but are rather relitigating the change of NCROY. So, consensus to move IMO Mach61 19:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Similar story at Talk:Edward V of England. Talk:Otto_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor has a stronger numerical majority than those other two discussions, OTOH Mach61 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Or we have evidence that the community no longer supports NCROY. When a discussion appears to depart from a written rule, sometimes that means the written rule should be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing That's sometimes the case, but it's hard to justify not enforcing a well-advertized RfC from less than half a year ago. Yes, consensus can change, even in that timeframe, but it could just as well be the case that a loud minority which lost its day to the broader community is able to temporarily gum-up lower bandwidth processes like RM (IIRC something like this happened with WP:NSPORTS2022 and AfD in the months after it was closed). Anyone is free to open up a second RfC if they so desire. Mach61 01:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

More succinctly: I don't really care about NCRORY/ I do care about making sure our consensus-based processes reflect the will of the community, not the will of the most tenditious members within Mach61 01:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there were 25 editors in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles? (including the closer), and who knows how many more in the individual RMs. Theoretically, we could ping them all to a discussion that basically says "C'mon, guys, you told us a few months ago that shorter is probably better, and now you're saying the opposite. Make up your minds already." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that another RFC is probably necessary, perhaps inevitable. BD2412 T 18:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed a reopening the RFC at WP:NCROY, but was hoping for more feedback on where the RfC should be held to ensure widest participation possible. NCROY is watched by only a small handful of people (royalist afficionados mostly), whereas the article titles affect a much wider community (which is why there is a much "local" resistance to individual RM page moves). The RfC last November on NCROY which changed the wording and created this mess had less participation than the individual individual RMs have had. So I would like to know where the ideal venue for the RfC should be, to ensure adequate participation among the wider community, particularly those who are not particularly interested in royals, but who these pages nonetheless affect (e.g. history articles across the board). Walrasiad (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Walrasiad You can do another RfC at WT:NCROY or WP:VPP. I would suggest you run it through with other people first. Mach61 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#Three_options

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd intended to close this RfC, asking for help, but might be best if someone else does the closure, as I'm currently less available. Draft closure that can be added to:

"The result of the move request was consensus against current title.

A key policy is WP:AT, which has commonname and WP:POVNAME. Npov is also core. There is consensus the current title, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, is out of date and too long. 3 main options were proposed to replace it: Option 1: Gaza genocide question, Option 2: Gaza genocide accusation, Option 3: Gaza genocide. WP:ACD advice is relevant. Options 1 and 2 are similar. Option 3 had the highest level of support and opposition. Option 1 appeared to just have the second most at this time. Supporters for Option 3 stated many reliable references refer to these events as Gaza genocide, per commonname. Opposers of option 3, said it was not neutral and noted the case at ICJ was still in progress. There is consensus the current title is out of date and too long. A way forward might be to move the article to second choice Option 1, as suggested by WP:ACD. A simpler RfC could then be run on whether the article should be further moved to Gaza genocide. That Rfc could further develop arguments on, commonname, weighting legal sources, why we don't need to wait for icj, why we do need to wait, neutrality."

Redrafted Tom B (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Status quo was not offered as an option, so the multiple option question was not correctly formed, and the outcome you suggest is not achievable in that discusion. It's different when it's "move X to Y" responses to which are "Support" and "Oppose". Here the starter of that subsection made a mistake of forgetting to include a generic "Oppose" as an option in the form of "Keep the current title". Note also that many have supported option 2, which is "Gaza genocide accusation", and that is practically synonymous with "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" (more concise which is a matter of form, not substance, and "allegation" is replaced with "accusation" which is substantially the same) so such a close would also weigh against option 2 in the future, and would distort the discussion. I do not think that the discussion should be closed in this way. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: I would not be concerned about the absence of "status quo" as an option, because the second part of the poll was called after substantial participation in the first part had clearly established a consensus to move away from the current title. I gather that the poll was then called with the intent of asking the previous participants, who were pinged, to further specify their desired outcome, but ended up drawing a lot more participation on its own. That's fine, though. Status quo is always understood to be an option even if unspoken, and any participant in the latter discussion could have stated a preference for the status quo. BD2412 T 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see such a clearly established consensus. Status quo is an explicit option when the question is formulated as "Move A to B", with the answers obviously suggested as "Yes/Support" and "No/Oppose". It is not an explicit option when the question is formulated as "We should do something and here are the three options: Option B, Option C, Option D" (no "Option A" as in the status quo), and it should also remain an explicit option. Furthermore, option 2 is in essence the same or almost the same as "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza". I see willingness among many editors to concede something as a from of a compromise with the editors strongly advocating for "Palestinian genocide", by making the title more similar to that, but the increased similarity is superficial, since "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" and "Gaza genocide accusation" are very similar to each other while both being quite dissimilar to "Gaza genocide". Saying then that there was consensus against the current title then feeds into opposition against "Gaza genocide accusation". —Alalch E. 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

I've read over the proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and wanted to get some feedback to make sure I did everything correctly. Since this is a sensitive topic I want to make sure I'm doing things correctly and if I've made a mistake or overlooked something I would really appreciate some help and resources so I can be better. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. I am an uninvolved editor, if you go through my history and find an article I've edited on this topic it is most likely due to my work with WP:CHECKWIKI. As with everything I do here I welcome and encourage constructive feedback on my talk page, we are all here to build an encyclopedia. This discussion has been open for 80 days and the conversation has slowed down, as a significant period of time has passed since these events took place and since there's a backlog I'm going to be bold and close this. I've reviewed everyone's input and believe that there is consensus towards merging these two articles. I took into account the issue of that the two articles are effectively a WP:POVFORK. I am aware of the issue of the name of the merged article, that is a different discussion then what is happening here. We are talking about an article merge WP:PROPMERGE There were many people who pointed out the naming of the article citing body counts and dictionary definitions, that is not what this merger is about. This merger is about the content of the two articles being merged into one, and that is the only issue at hand. For moving the page and picking a new name I would direct people to WP:REQMOVE, whenever that occurs I will not be involved in that process. For the discussion on this it was pointed out that there are similar cases where there are two articles, one about an operation and another about the effects of said operation. SunDawn raised one of the best points on the issue at with sources and naming " All sources that specify "massacre" correlate it to the "rescue" which made the two articles inextricable - thus disallowing the "massacre" standalone article per WP:POVFORK and WP:REDUNDANT.". This does not mean that in the future there will not be two articles, but after reviewing the sources in both articles I am not seeing a clear bifurcation that would warrant two articles. I also found Chaotic Enby's comment on merging into a neutral article title to be what I believe is the best and most sensible path forward "Calling it exclusively a rescue operation and acting like the massacre of hundreds of people is a "spinoff" is just as POV, and a neutral title like 2024 Nuseirat attack (covering both the rescue operation and the massacre) would be reasonable.". Moving forward after this is closed I will make an attempt to merge as much content over and then clean up here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming it's a reasonably accurate summary (I've read none of the discussion), then that looks good to me. If you are curious, as of right now, there have been 179 comments by 71 people in that discussion. Some editors seem to be comforted by some reference to the number of people voting for/against., though IMO you have correctly focused on the reasons.

I suggest waiting a day or two after posting the closing summary before trying to edit the articles. Hot-button topics sometimes provoke unwarranted WP:CLOSECHALLENGEs by anyone who feels their side "lost", and if you wait for the reaction to happen first, you might prevent a few needless edits/reverts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks that's some good advice, I didn't think about letting everything calm down for a little bit before moving things around. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget to summarize the discussion. Just like if you were reading secondary sources and then using those to write a Wikipedia article, in my opinion a good close should involve reading the RFC and then summarizing it in your close. I would expect to find something like "X side argued Y, Z, and A, B side argued C, D, and E" in there somewhere. after reviewing the sources in both articles I am not seeing a clear bifurcation that would warrant two articles sounds a bit WP:SUPERVOTEy. As an RFC closer it is arguable if you should actually be reading a bunch of sources, but rather you should be letting the RFC participants read those sources for you and you just summarize the participants. what I believe is the best and most sensible path forward This could also be seen as a bit SUPERVOTEy. You shouldn't really be posting too many of your own opinions, but rather summarizing the discussion, and ideally only bringing in your own opinion if there is a major breach of Wikipedia policy that needs to be pointed out. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and I agree, there was a point made about making two articles and I was trying to point out that in other cases the sources warranted two articles but that this case it doesn't. But that it might in the future seeing that this happened a few months ago and not years like other topics. I like the idea of summarizing both sides, that adds to it in a much more sustative way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You pointed that I am aware of the issue of the name of the merged article, that is a different discussion then what is happening here. This is indeed not a different discussion at all, as the name of the merged article defines its scope (and thus what is merged), and a very large number of !votes were conditional on having a neutral title for the merged article. Since the move discussion was closed as "no consensus" (and thus not moved, although it could be reopened after the merger), I believe it isn't reasonable to discount those !votes like this by claiming that is not what this merger is about. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)