---

You really read this discussion with 2 editors arguing in support and 2 arguing in oppose, and decided that there was consensus? I understand evaluating strength of arguments, but how do you justify closing as "consensus to exclude" over "no consensus to include"? PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 00:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The number of editors on either side doesn't matter because discussions are not a vote. I didn't close the discussion as no consensus because there was consensus that it should be excluded under P&Gs and there was no common sense reason to invoke IAR. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• If I may jump in. I just read about this earlier today (have never looked at the article and wasn't aware of the controversy) and, without reading much of the unusually long-lasting RfC as yet, may I ask that you open it back up again as a relisting and let it ride into the New Year. Thanks, and may the holidays bring you much happiness and find you grinning ear-to-ear (from time-to-time). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Randy. This was a discussion, not an RfC, and I don't think reopening it would accomplish anything given that the last comments before my close were over one week before. Happy holidays to you as well. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mention, I missed it and have never read the page, so would have liked to have the chance to join in. The discussion has been open for so long that giving it another week would't harm the flow and would gain further comment. Please reconsider this, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have a new perspective that might change consensus as to the IAR question, then I would consider reopening it. What are your thoughts on the issue? voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've yet to read the long and long-opened discussion in-depth, and will get back to this if my thoughts haven't been expressed in it as yet. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Referring me to WP:VOTE is entirely inappropriate - the discussion on the Talk page was not a simple poll. Nobody there left simple "votes" or "one-word opinions." There was much more discussion that you're boiling this down to by invoking that page. The only section of that essay that's remotely applicable here is this, which says "it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion". Which is exactly what was done.

Also, I'll remind you that the P&Gs do not exist unto themselves. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles." Only guideline pages were ever invoked as a reason to remove the content in contention, and at the top of every guideline page exists this reminder, in some form: "[This guideline] is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." When a long and hearty discussion as been had, it is supremely unhelpful for someone to come along and say "this is not allowed, guideline says so." Policies, on the other hand, are sometimes immutable in that way (i.e. for legal reasons, with WP:BLP stuff). But guidelines are certainly NOT meant to be used in this way.

Lastly, in your close you mention that WP:ASTONISH was being "violated", when that's neither a policy nor a guideline.

Your close came in entirely too strong based on the discussion that occurred. I'd ask you to either reconsider your interpretation of "consensus", or remove your close. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 15:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Referring me to WP:VOTE is entirely inappropriate - the discussion on the Talk page was not a simple poll I think you misunderstand. The reference to WP:VOTE is a refutation of your claim that there can be no consensus just because the number of people on each side of the discussion are evenly matched. It seems to be you who's trying to reduce the discussion to a simple numbers game here, not Voorts.

"this is not allowed, guideline says so" is another cognitive distortion as it's you who's effectively saying the opposite (i.e. "guidelines don't matter at all, because IAR"). Voorts' close clearly addressed the common sense invocation and explicitly took into account the exceptions the guidelines provide for, particularly the one about "reasonable navigation opportunities", and concluded that they don't apply.

He also didn't say that WP:ASTONISH had been "violated", only that others had argued that it had (contravened is probably the appropriate term here), and clearly acknowledged that it was an explanatory essay to a guideline. I think you need to read through it again. 81.102.123.104 ( talk) 15:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in relitigating anything with you, after our extensive chat on the Talk page. I'd like voorts to answer for their close. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 15:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ PhotogenicScientist I think my close and my response above speak for themselves. Please feel free to request a close review at AN. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd really rather not ply that venue - as I'm sure you know, that's rarely pleasant for anyone. You really don't want to answer to any of my points here? PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 16:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ PhotogenicScientist As the IP editor noted, I referred to !vote because you said that there was a 2-2 split in opinion, and I was responding to that point. Additionally, I identified policy violations, such as HATNOT, not just guideline issues. I don't think my readings of those P&Gs were strict, but rather based on their plain meaning. I then found that there was no clear common sense reason provided to invoke IAR, and given that the P&G violations are clear, there's consensus to remove. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HN is an editing guidline, not a policy. It says so right at the top of the page. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ PhotogenicScientist You're correct, it is a guideline, my mistake. I think my points still stand whether it's a guideline or policy. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean... "IAR" was not the predominant argument in regards to the guidelines that were discussed. @ EEng and I offered interpretations of those guidelines. Especially considering that guidelines are more bendable than policies, IAR doesn't exactly have to be invoked - often, a local consensus can determine if something that would normally be proscribed by a guideline is beneficial.

Honestly, your interpretation of the guidelines was technically solid, and you clearly waded through the whole discussion to make your assessment, both of which I appreciate. However, your conclusion of "consensus to exclude" is where I take issue - if anything, I see the discussion as falling on "no consensus to include/exclude." Especially now that we've determined there's no overriding policy-based reason to exclude the hatnote. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that neither you nor EEng explicitly cited IAR, and I also understand that you and EEng offered different interpretations of MOS:CIRCULAR. However, for the reasons I noted, I think your reading of MOS:CIRCULAR was incorrect. Additionally, neither of you argued for a different reading of HATNOT (and I believe you conceded that it was applicable during the discussion) or SELFRED. Given that you didn't identify an applicable exception to any of the guidelines cited, your arguments for inclusion were to ignore those guidelines. (IAR does not only apply to policies; WP:IAR defines the word rule by linking to WP:P&G). I think there was clear consensus to exclude based on the guidelines that were cited in the conversation. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

However, for the reasons I noted, I think your reading of MOS:CIRCULAR was incorrect. This is where you've lost me. Closers are to discard the arguments of those involved in discussion ONLY if: they flatly contradict established policy, they're based on personal opinion only, they are logically fallacious, or if they show no understanding of the matter of issue. I believe we've settled that the first and second aren't applicable. So, do you think @ EEng and I were making logically fallacious arguments, or did we show no understanding at all of the matter of issue?

Also, I did in fact address SELFRED - it's not applicable here, since the Main link isn't to a redirect. And though this really isn't the venue for it, as a close review discussion and not one of content, but the arguement to WP:HATNOT in incredibly weak, based upon a single word that was not the intention of the sentence: Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links. The purpose of the sentence is to tell people not to pipe their links. The word "other" isn't really the sticking point there. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 23:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe your argument was fallacious because it relies upon a misreading of MOS:CIRCULAR. Both ForeverStamp and the IP editor responded to your reading, arguing that there's nothing navigational about linking an editor back to the same page. As I also noted in my close, the portion of MOS:CIRCULAR that you cited is belied by the following sentence, which says not to use a circular redirect to draw attention to an "idea".

Regarding SELFRED, the purpose of the guideline is to prohibit redirecting back to the same article, with limited exceptions. It would be absurd to say that Self referential humor isn't allowed to be used to redirect back to Self-referential humor, but that the latter would be.

As for HATNOT, the argument you're now making wasn't raised in the discussion. In any event, the fact that the guideline says not to pipe links to other articles necessarily implies that hatnotes should link to another article. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 23:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE says "The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for.". So the presence of the word "other" in Rule 1 is clearly not incidental. 82.132.187.184 ( talk) 23:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Voorts Please, just go back and read through the 'Consensus' section on closing discussions, and the linked section on "rough consensus". Consensus is not determined the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. A closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. And throughout both pages, closers are reminded to make their decisions "within compliance of the spirit of Wikipedia policy", and that "[core content] policies are non negotiable." Policy is consistently brought up as a reason to overrule arguments - guidelines are NOT. In fact, the only place where guidelines are called out, on the rough consensus page, EXPLICITLY reminds closers that "a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests."

You've mentioned that you thought WP:HN is a policy when you made the close; it's not a policy. In your close, you cited that WP:ASTONISH was being violated, but that's neither a policy nor a guideline. Your close was not as technically strong as I'm sure you thought it was. As I said before, I'm not asking you to vacate your close, but an update to "no consensus" would be a much more accurate assessment of the discussion.

Failing that, I'd join Randy below in asking you to vacate it and allow someone else to come along to close it. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not just based upon policy; otherwise, guidelines would never matter. Indeed, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Then, footnote one at the end of that sentence makes clear: This includes policies, guidelines, widely-accepted essays, and discussions like WP:Requests for comment.

I mistakenly called HN a policy above, as I noted; I was aware it was a guideline at the time of closing. As noted by the IP above, I also did not say that ASTONISH (which is an explanatory essay) had been violated; I said that editors had argued that it had been violated, but that I was not addressing that issue in my close. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) - Does it matter that much? It's just a section hatnote... Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 16:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Some say life is just a sequence of section hatnotes. Others differ. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ Tim O'Doherty One man's hatnote is another man's noted hat. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, have read the discussion and again and ask that it be relisted or reopened for new ideas. The focus within the discussion and close that the 'Other examples' hatnote (which in itself is certainly 'another example') being a joke is incorrect and judgmental. The IAR policy would apply here (IAR was not specifically raised in the discussion, so opening it to add that point seems applicable), as would the commonsense exception to the guidelines offered by guideline hatnotes. Linking back to the article is not a joke, it is a valid 'Other example'. Both a direct example of the page topic and a way for the reader to understand the concepts articulated on the page. Importantly, since IAR was not specifically discussed it has not been "talked out". Arguments for that exact policy (policies supersedes guidelines) have not been given room to grow, and a back-and-forth discussion about IAR (which should be done within the discussion and not on Voorts talk page) would include thoughts not yet expressed here by myself and others. Due to the holidays I'd ask that the discussion be reopened for a couple more weeks, so the elves can take a well-needed rest and holiday. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • If you read the discussions about it going back to 2018, IAR was already explicitly invoked. Indeed, it was the main pretext for adding it in the first place. I don't think resurrecting a tired old debate would break any new ground. 149.86.189.197 ( talk) 19:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Randy. Although I appreciate yoru view on the matter, I do not think that reopening the discussion at this point will lead to a different outcome. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)