User talk:ReaderofthePack

·

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Quick q

Hello, and thanks for your input on Life In The Old Cloth and its associated pages. I'm still new to reviewing new pages, and I was working under the impression that I wasn't supposed to mark tagged articles as reviewed until the tag has been addressed. Have I got that wrong? Your thoughts would be appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being completely honest, that's an area where I'm a little uncertain with as well. I think that nominating a page for AfD will mark it as reviewed since you're tagging it as having major issues, which could only be done if you review the page. I've always kind of interpreted review as basically: you are reviewing to see if there are any issues - ideally you will deal with the issues, but it's somewhat "OK" to tag a page and move on if you are reasonably certain that the creating editor will return and (ideally) resolve the concerns.

Problem is with me, I've never been quite certain that anyone would return so I tend to steer away from reviewing new articles unless I can fix them myself and deal more with the ones that have (or in general with the mop/broom tasks for admins). I don't think that your interpretation is wrong, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: good to know, thank you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have made a mistake regarding page Yelkenler Biçilecek, which I Prod-ded for not having any content: another editor removed it, and suggested I add A7 as a justification instead: I didn't see what I needed in my curation menu, so I Prod-ded it again using a different phrasing. Now I think that was probably an incorrect move: but if so, what should I have done instead, please? Your thoughts, as always, much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, sorry I missed this! I had a bit of IRL chaos over the weekend, so I didn't get a chance to come in and check Wikipedia until today. Looks like it was deleted via A9. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries: and thanks for getting back to me. Hope the chaos sorts itself soon! ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, ReaderofthePack!

Happy New Year!

ReaderofthePack,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AfD merge

Hi @ReaderofthePack! Happy New Year to you! I wanted to clarify something regarding this AfD. I saw that you created a new article for the content of the AfD article to be merged to, which was then completed. This took place before the AfD was due to close however. Usually actions are not supposed to be taken before an AfD is due to close, as this can sidestep consensus. In this AfD, there are participants who have !voted to delete, and also keep the article, rather than merge. This is why I have relisted.

I respect however that you are an administrator. A personal rule I follow is not to challenge administrators, so I'm not going to do that here, instead I wanted to clarify why a merge was completed before the AfD was due to close? Thanks! 11WB (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was done for the following reasons:

There was already support for a merge to a series page and it was fairly likely that this would be the outcome.
The original version of the article actually didn't contain merged content. Someone specifically argued to keep the article because the content had not yet been merged, even though they supported a series article and potential merge/redirect. In other words, someone was arguing for a keep purely because the content was not merged and they didn't think that anyone would perform the merge after the AfD was done.
Even if the outcome had been to keep the individual article, the merge wouldn't have prevented an individual article. What would have been sidestepping consensus would have been if I had then redirected after merging in content. It's honestly pretty common for people to merge content in from individual articles, so it's not completely unheard of for a good chunk to be merged and then for the article to remain on its own.

I hope this all helps! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining this! I wasn't too concerned honestly. My only worry was that by merging before the AfD closes, it could influence how other participants !vote. This was a good outcome though either way! 11WB (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, ReaderofthePack!

Happy New Year!

ReaderofthePack,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]