Blueboar

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)

BEEEEP…

Leave Messages and Comments below this line

____________________________________

RE: "what's wrong with RFCs?"

I hope you don't mind me responding here. The last thing that discussion needs is my long winded response to your question. To answer your question, nothing is wrong with RFCs. I volunteer a portion of my time commenting on them. However, this topic is coming up over and over. Ever consensus case has ended in inclusion. Over the last 18 months, there hasn't been a consensus case to exclude an infobox. There comes a time to document the community's position to avoid pointless RFCs on articles like Gioachino Rossini which will inevitably become a RFC. That article's TALK features the same people bickering about the topic that are in the infobox proposal discussion. The last two proposals on this topic were drafted by editors who had no long term history with that conflict that goes back 15 years. We just saw the dysfunction, the lack of good faith, and battleground nature of the discussions, and hoped to do something about it. My first engagement with this topic an IP editor threw a "contentious topic" notice on my TALK about it. When independent arbitrators have asked that the community do something and members of the community say "it's not a problem" then that doesn't really make sense when the topic keeps coming up. I hope that helps answer your question. Thanks for contributing! Nemov (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see all those RFCs as being a sign of a healthy and active editorship. I don’t see them as “disfunction” but as the process functioning as designed. I think they are a good thing.

And … every so often… the consensus has been: “Huh… You know what, in this case, it turns out we ‘’shouldn’t have an infobox after all”. so I’m not convinced. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there have been 15, maybe more RFCs on this topic since the first time I encountered it on Lawrence Oliver in October 2022. Not once in that time has a RFC consensus been against inclusion. The alternate outcome has been a failure to reach the threshold consensus for inclusion. These cases simply come up again later when a newer editor sees a large article missing an infobox. It's difficult to see how this situation could be considered healthy when numerous editors are trying to do something about it, arbitrators have asked for something to be done, and when well respected closers are asking for something to be done. Anyway, thanks again for your time. Happy editing! Nemov (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying “We intentionally don’t have a rule on whether an article should or should not have an infobox… that is determined by consensus at the article level” IS (to my mind) “doing something”. Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The main goal is to save valuable editor time by avoiding time consuming RFCs that are a drain on resources, but if others think that's an acceptable use of the community's time so be it. Nemov (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood… my take is that discussions like these are an essential part of the community’s resources and time. Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)