Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:13, 5 May 2009

2 May 2009

Red cunt hair

Red cunt hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear consensus, so should have defaulted to keep  Chzz  ►  22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: The debate fell clearly within admin discretion and it's important we maintain our core principles, esp. project scope. Additionally, the arguments from the delete side were much stronger. I see no reason to dig up the buried horse. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I personally would have closed it as no consensus, but I trust the closing admin's judgment. Also, the arguments to delete the article were stronger than those to keep. –Juliancolton |  22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - competently closed by weighing arguments instead of counting votes. Given the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, a delete result was a good call. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn- I see no consensus to delete from that. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Correct policy weighted close. There were a lot of ilikeit keeps, but not much that addressed the reasons why the AfD was begun. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. That should've been a no consensus outcome.—S Marshall /_Cont 08:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, notavote. Deletion had the arguements, keeping had the numbers. I don't like numbers. ] (] · ]) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. When a deletion discussion has roughly the same number of people supporting and opposing deletion, the administrator closing the debate should take into account when determining the result the strength of arguments, and whether either side had the force of a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline behind it. That was exactly what happened here, although the basic delete closure without an explanation of this might have been a suboptimal choice. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Proper admin closure per guideline. I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments against it. MuZemike 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, other editors would've given a great deal less weight to Smerdis of Tlon's argument than I would have!—S Marshall /_Cont 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• weak endorse This probably belongs on a list somewhere, so ideally a merge would have occurred instead. But target isn't clear. As Stifle indicated, the closer ideally would have provided an explanation (and again, ideally, mentioned a willingness to merge given a target). Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse good close, no procedural problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse good close - arguments by those favouring deletion were obviously stronger than those favouring retention. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn - clearly worth keeping and far away from being a dictionary entry. Topic has a long enough history and the article was well written and had good sources. Why was this deleted in the first place? Both discussions ended very close and were within weeks. Do we repeat AfDs until an admin can be found who's willing to delete the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that this DRV has been canvassed at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron - (diff). Black Kite 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Notifying WP:ARS about content under deletion review is not WP:CANVASSing. The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly."
      No, it hasn't. You may want to read WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything? and WP:ARS#What the Rescue template is not for. It is not an article inclusion thinktank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Nonsense - ARS' remit is to provide sources and cleanup articles that are at AfD. It is specifically *not* a vote-gathering exercise. It is sad to see the cynical impression that some have garnered of the ARS so quickly confirmed by one of its members. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggest you re-think that. Indicating that ARS is a mechanism for voting in a certain manner at AfD and DRV would probably lead to an MfD for the project. However, canvassing is clearly indicated here, as many Keep voters on the original AfD were ARS members, and thus likely to vote Overturn here (as you can see below). Black Kite 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Blatant and wholly inappropriate canvassing by the person who brought this to DRV. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. In cases like this we really should simply close the discussion altogether, but I suppose that'll just stir up drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If ARS has a remit limited to providing sources and cleaning up articles that are at AfD, why was there a notification regarding this DRV? From my perspective, it certainly looks like canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn no consensus outcome would have been correct.Ikip (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If my actions are classed as canvassing, then I sincerely apologise. It was suggested to me that I inform ARS of the DRV, and the idea that this could be construed as canvassing honestly never occurred to me; all I can do is to plead ignorance/stupidity.  Chzz  ►  08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't feel that there was consensus to delete the article. I also feel like they were just taking stabs at the apple only a few weeks after the first AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments. OlYeller 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The keep arguments generally seemed to be "but it's well sourced", ignoring the basic argument. Quantpole (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus And the delete arguments were IDONTLIKEIT. of the two, well sourced is much nearer to policy. I was undecided myself, & therefore didn't comment at the afd, But looking at it there was no consensus. There's no way to judge what the closer may have based the close on, as he has never said. DGG (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They weren't IDONTLIKEIT arguments. They were "Hey, we've been through this previously and decided to create a separate project for dictionary definitions" arguments. Have one citation, have sixteen: a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition. If only this were codified somewhere.... ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see much of a clear leaning in either direction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. (disclosure: I recommended Keep in the AfD) After taking some time to distill the arguments in the disucssion, I see a clear "no consensus". There were more "keep" arguments than "delete" arguments (12 to 10). The keepers basically said "it's notable and it's already more than a DICDEF". The deleters basically said "it's a non-notable DICDEF or I don't like it". Neither side really supported their arguments with evidence, other than the references already in the article. Thus, instead of a "keep", it should be lowered to "no consensus". Data:

Keep arguments:
	Keep Sourced, notable, move to Hair (unit of measurement)	1
	Keep Already more than a WP:DICDEF				4
	Keep Sourced, repetetive nomination				1
	Keep + move to Hair (unit of measurement)			1
	Keep per WP:NOTDIC						1
	Keep Sourced, WP is not censored				1
	Keep Sourced, notable						3
Delete arguments:
	Delete Article is ridiculous, WP:DICDEF, Not notable		1
	Delete WP:DICDEF						6
	Delete Article is nonsense/ridiculous				1
	Delete Article is ridiculous + WP:DICDEF			1
	Delete Not notable						1

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not arguing "delete" or "keep" here. I'm arguing that an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments clearly points to a "no consensus" closure. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn The correct finding was "no consensus." "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments should have been ignored. Edison (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Personally I would've gone for some merge/redirect with the unit of measurement article, but there's nothing wrong with this close. Those arguing above that Delete !votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT are missing the point that at least there's a rationale (WP:DICDEF) there, whilst many of the Keeps are vague armwaving that somewhow it isn't a dicdef or it's notable purely because there are lots of sources (at least six votes say something along those lines). Black Kite 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Within the discretion of the closing administrator. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer

This category was proposed for renaming to Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer on April 18. With very little discussion, the rename was approved, effective April 24. (See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer.) Only one person posted an opinion in favor of the change; one other said "put it on hold" and one wrote against it. This does not appear to be a consensus in favor of the change.

In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on Misplaced Pages from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.

To me, "Songs written by X" implies songs where X wrote both lyrics and music. Mercer wrote both for only one or two songs; he was by far known primarily as a lyricist. Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.

Some persons have objected to having three categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the most accurate way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote primarily either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the very small number where, a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a lot of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.

To satisfy Alansohn's comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer. -- BRG (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only did I nominate the merge, but encouraged BRG to bring the matter here for further discussion. I also notified BRB on his talkpage and at Wikisongs. Whereas I agree with BRG's comments regarding JM and writers of that era, what happens when 1. WP can't verify who wrote what? 2. What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist? 3 Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only? Furthermore, a category is a navigation tool, not a definition of who wrote what, so anybody interested in songs that JM is involved with will go to the article and discover exactly what his contribution was. If you applied the logic that BRG is using you would have separate, say the Lennon/McCatney category into "songs written by Lennon, but credited to Lennon/McCartney", ditto, McCartney. Please note : If a songwriter is purely a lyricist or a composer I see no problem categorizing accordingly, nor putting something into the JM category to establish he is principally a lyricist who also composed music. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The cases of "What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist?" and "Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only" is covered by what I said earlier: "Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a 'Songs written by X' category is appropriate." The first is a different issue, and it certainly is of a kind with other situations where an important piece of information is unknown. (In at least one case I managed to be able to make a good guess; see Ricochet (song), where I've tried to make it clear that it is a guess, but with good reason.) -- BRG (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your solution to Ricochet fails both WP:V and WP:OR, which is a shame because you are probably correct in your assumptions and your good faith is not in dispute in any way. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the words there again. What was stated there was verifiable, namely that particular members of the team are known to have written lyrics or music to specified other songs. While you might make a case for WP:OR, if you wish to say that deleting the conclusion' is necessary, a case for that may exist; but that needs to be discussed elsewhere. -- BRG (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Relist and discuss the merits there, not here, or in a more general forum. The closer said: "If wider consensus is to split all of the "written by" categories out into "lyrics by" and "music by", this can be reversed. That, however, is a very large undertaking and will require more input than this". As for the particular instance: here was only one support of the original proposal; the nom himself , after introducing the nom by saying "I consider this a very contentious nomination," said "Not adverse to this suggestion" to an alternate proposal. DGG (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Relist There was no clear consensus. - Mgm| 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there. Good Ol’factory 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that a new CfD discussion has been started. I didn't mean to suggest that this should be started prior to the conclusion of this DRV. It was just my opinion about what should be done once the DRV was closed. I suggest the new CfD discussion be closed pending the outcome here, since having 2 ongoing processes for the same thing is confusing. Sorry if my comments were misinterpreted in this regard. Good Ol’factory 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Then close the new CfD discussion. My understanding of your comment was that you thought a CfD discussion was more appropriate than a DRV. If you had meant "once the DRV was closed," perhaps you should have said that. -- BRG (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Newtones (closed)