- Gloucester dory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm opening this DRV for User:Anmccaff who originally posted it on AN/I and was correctly referred here. He said:Salvidrim closed an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gloucester_dory, to merge, against the little consensus present, and adding an unrelated article, not discussed at all to the mergers. Could you have a look?
This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. was posed to Swampscott dory's page; which you can see at a glance was not tagged for deletion, and which you can see at an only slightly longer glance, is not a close relative of the subject he wishes to merge it to. —S Marshall T/C 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it stirs less shit to overturn to no consensus and open an actual merger discussion I frankly DGAF (and I've said as much in my AfD closure). I don't think the AfD needs to be overturned for a subsequent merge discussion to happen anyways though. And I certainly don' think we need a AfD, an AN thread, an ANI thread, and a DRV discussions when a simple merge discussion would've been better upfront but we are where we are. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's really being contested here anyways is the addition of a merger tag to one of the sub-articles (which Anmccaff has reverted many times and which I can't be assed to edit war forever over, so it's now gone). He doesn't even recognize that the AfD ended up being about the three sub-articles, let alone formulate a coherent argument against the closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you DGAF, then you certainly should not be doing drive-by AfD closures. That, and your cavalier edit-warring, was why this started at ANI, not here. Based on your actions since, I suspect this is a competence question rather than malice.
- user:Salvidrim added a peripherally involved, undiscussed article to the AfD, which is the question at hand. Swampscott dory was not part of the discussion, except in passing, and was not tagged to notify interested parties. There was, and is, no reason to delete Swampscott dory, and next to none to merge it to Banks dory While it's certainly an ancestor of the bankers, it has a separate notable -and far longer -history of its own. Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down. AfDs are supposed to be closed by previously uninvolved people, so I don't understand the objection to a "drive-by closure". Salvidrim's actions in enforcing his close are normal and proportional because a discussion close is an administrative action; unilaterally overturning the close using the "revert" button is a pretty extreme thing to do, and questioning his competence is definitely beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour here.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfectly calm, thanks. There is a real difference between disinterested and uninterested. The closer needs to see that the issues raised have been discussed -as opposed to simply voted on. The closer should also not widen the discussion, inaccurately tagging articles as subject to a successful Afd. As to the other issue, we'll have to agree to disagree. Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but... The AfD close was proper. However, it may have overstepped its bounds in suggesting that un-nominated articles should be merged as a result of the AfD. I suggest reducing any tags on articles other than Gloucester dory to being just merge-to tags, rather than the merge-as-result-of-AfD tags. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that, but the only reason I didn't do it this way is because the merge-to tag implies that I AM proposing the merge, which is false: the AfD is. Plus, I agree the AfD didn't start out as a multi-nom, but I argue that as you scroll down the discussion it becomes crystal clear most commenters see it as a group discussion about the three sub-articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Merge to}} says "It has been suggested that." It doesn't really ascribe who made the suggestion; all it says is the suggestion has been made, so here's where to talk about it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse in the same vein as C.Fred. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- why, exactly? There is, so far, a single member of the AfD discussion proposing this...or rather a non-participant in the discussion, since this was a bit of a drive-by closing. There isn't a consensus to merge Swampscott dory; there was barely even a mention of it. It should not be tagged in passing at all. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you literally joking? How can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory and seriously tell me Swampscott dory wasn't part of it? Are you trying to be funny or just stubbornly refusing to look at what's in front on you? AGF prevents me from assuming you're actually stupid so please stop trying to demonstrate it. Your claim that nobody argued to merge all three subarticles in the AfD is beyond comprehension. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Can you show a single bit of substantive discussion of merging Swampscott dory? Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Where's the discussion? Just some voting, closed shortly after its proposal. If the other articles deserved seven days, so does this one. Anmccaff (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, we can agree it would've been better if the AfD was a multi-nom from the start, with tags on each of the three pages, but I don't think this flaw would've resulted in significantly different consensus, hence my closure. But this is specifically why I urged, in the same closure, further discussion to take place on the target page specifically about the merge of the three articles, with the understanding that a different path than the initial AfD might end up being agreed upon at a later time via said talk page discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think there is a very real possibility discussion might have led to a different result. Outside of Wikipedian OR, the Swampscott boats aren't terribly related, as discussed on the article's talk page. Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While I've done my best to avoid commenting on the content itself so far, there's a small point I hope you realize: "merging" articles doesn't mean the three subarticles are about the same topic, it can mean that they are related topics best covered under a broader article. A concept article can easily cover variants in subsections which may better serve the reader than a series of related short stubs all with the same single reference anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The broader article is Dory. It can easily encompass both the Bankers and the Swampscotts. Banks dorys diverge from their round-sided ancestors, and have a separate history that intertwines with river bateau. So do Cape Ann/Gloucesters (as the terms are used in these articles). Swampscotts don't, and reading the sources cited makes that abundantly clear. Anmccaff (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent and coherent argument to make in a merge discussion as to what should be merged where. It is thus unfortunate that instead of discussing the consensus to "merge the subarticles upstream" you preferred opening threads at ANI then DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Steady on.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was fine. Yes, technically the other pages weren't "AFD merges" if we strictly go by the nomination. But the discussion in the AfD implied that the other articles were considered to be merged as well. The merge templates were clearly added in good faith. A chat with the closing admin and a simple talk page discussion would have sufficed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the Swampscott dory page should have been tagged, and the clock reset to give it its seven days, I should think. The conversation hadn't even touched on it yet, really. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close properly assessed the consensus. If anything, maybe there could have been notifications put on the talk pages of the articles added to the discussion and the discussion relisted for another 7 days, however I don't think that this would have changed any positions or the end result. I have to disagree with Anmccaff - I think having an admin who DGAF is the perfect one to close a discussion - it adds precisely zero of their opinion into the discussion and keeps the close focused on what they assessed the consensus of the participants to be. PGWG (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yupp, an newly mentioned article should be discussed, rather than just nuked in passing...so how does this equate to Endorse? I'vw raised the point about disinterest above, I think. A closer should not have a dog in the fight, no, but he should take the discussion seriously enough to close it correctly. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an Endorse because, a) this was an accurate representation of the consensus on the AFD, and b) while the process wasn't perfect, I am thoroughly unconvinced that improving the process would have resulted in a different consensus being reached - so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, why re-do the process just for the sake of the process? As for disinterest, I don't think that Salvidrim was saying that he DGAF about the article or the result, but rather that he isn't firmly set on the label that is placed on the close, as his intent (evidenced by the text of his close) is not to chill discussion regarding such a wide merge. I read the situation exactly like his close statement says - the consensus from this AFD is to merge all those articles, however further discussion regarding such a wide merge could/should take place on the appropriate talk page. PGWG (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, surprise, surprise, one of the articles has already been summarily merged before this review is even over, a very predictable outcome of pasting inaccurate Afd tags on an article. Anmccaff (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - An appropriate consensus read by an uninvolved party. I see no issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Like above I too would've preferred notifications to have been posted on each talkpage and relisted for another week but doing all of that now would be moronic (and In all fairness had the notifs been posted it may not have made a blind bit of difference), All that aside consensus was to merge them all and so I see no issue with the close. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - reasonable read of consensus in a complicated situation. A good close. Thparkth (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Sergecross73 above. Miniapolis 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse good close. It was a weak AfD nomination that should not be encouraged, but the discussion happened and the conclusion was clear. Further discussion, including proposals to reverse the decision in re-spin out this variant article should be held at Talk:Banks dory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh probably right outcome, but an ideal thing for the closer to have done would have been to tag the new articles with a link to the AfD and relist for one more round. I dislike having articles go away when it's possible someone would have been able to explain why it shouldn't go away had they merely known of the existence of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that someone has already merged one of these articles, Cape Ann dory, without any prior discussion on either page, before this review was even completed. Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the discussion has now run for over a week, and has a 10 to 1 consensus to endorse the Merge closure. And as of today, there haven't been any new comments in 4 days. I mean, it would have been nice if they waited for an official close of this discussion, but there's really no other way this discussion could be closed other than to endorse the merge. A better focus would be on how to best merge things at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
