User talk:Robynthehode/Archives/2021/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding this revert of yours, I figured I'd explain my line of reasoning: during the recent AfD, editors were basically split between those wanting to delete the list altogether and those wanting to rename it to something along the lines of List of planned tallest buildings under construction. Since the latter would obviously mean limiting the scope to only buildings actually under construction, that's what I did. I then tagged it as being duplicative of List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction, which was another issue brought up at the AfD. I also tagged the section on the other list. I then waited a week to see if anybody would weigh in on which of the duplicative lists should be kept (the AfD close noted that Not duplicating is a good idea, but which way round it should be can be decided by normal editorial discussion and action.). Since nobody did, I just arbitrarily picked one of them.

This is all to say that the edits I made were based on the discussion at the AfD. If you reverted because you have specific objections to my edits, I'm not averse to discussing their merits further on the article's talk page. But if you reverted solely due to procedural concerns, I feel like we've been over this already and that another discussion about the same thing would mostly just add another layer of bureaucracy needlessly. TompaDompa (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your post. I didn't realise there was an AfD about this. My only objection is that the decision makes the List of tallest buildings article a longer article than it needs to be and a redirect / link the other way round would be better. But I don't want to rehash a discussion already concluded. So I agree duplication is not helpful. Robynthehode (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverting my edit on sports

Hello, it appears that you’ve reverted my changes on the sports page. However, the original sentence is not adequate. The source used for the statements does not support the statements. I take issue with defining it as being entertaining for participants or spectators. It is not mentioned in subsections about the definitions in particular and seems irrelevant to a broad definition of sports from international organizations. WesPhil (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source says sport is to encourage physical and mental health - part of mental health is enjoying an activity you engage in. As regards spectators - I don't see the problem - spectators by defintion go to enjoy a sport they watch. You will need a source that states your position to include it. If you want to discuss this further please take this to the article talk page so other editors can engage in the discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for responding, I posted on the talk page. My only issues are in regard to phrasing and usage of the current source. From my argument this shouldn’t require a new source just to clarify my position. And I agree that spectators by definition may do that, but I’m just debating whether these elements pertain to the definition of a sport, so I look forward to seeing what other users think on the page. WesPhil (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]