Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Science fiction Western

message: Since this AfD has obviously failed and we are now talking about renaming the article, I move to continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. --Peace Inside 16:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be best to leave the judgement of whether an AfD has reached consensus or not to the closing admin, per suggested process. That doesn't preclude people talking about renaming as you suggest, and the place you suggest doing so seems valid to me. But if consensus is reached there to rename, please make sure you do it via move rather than copy, so that links from here to the article remain valid. It should then be noted that the move happened here, via a comment, and please realise that a move doesn't invalidate the AfD nomination, although it may influence the closing admin's view of what consensus was. Hope that helps!  ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments help to clarify your view on when you think an AfD should end. My view is that when sixteen people have expressed their views and not a single one of them, even the creator of the AfD, has voted for a Delete, a reasonable person can safely conclude that the entire AfD was a waste of time. I also feel confident that Administrators are not the only reasonable people at Wikipedia. *Peace Inside 18:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments clarify my view on what suggested process is and what it says about timelines, not on when I think a particular AfD should end. If you haven't followed the link I gave before you may want to consider doing so, here it is again for your convenience: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion... it's quite good reading and one of the things it talks about is the timeline for these things. This AfD is likely to fail, in my view, so why not just wait it out? The article is neither a speedy keep nor a speedy delete, IMHO, so the timeline ought to be adhered to. To the reasonable person comment: I would think of myself as a reasonable person (and not an administrator). I am not afraid to call *fD's wasted time (and have done so in the past) but I don't see this particular one as a waste, if it leads to improvements in the article that otherwise would not have come about, that's goodness, and worth the effort. As the article stands it's Original Research, as near as we can tell, so it needs cites at the least. I'd also note that several users have given you advice about how best to comport oneself in one of these discussions which I'm not sure you've heeded yet. I think it's useful advice that you may want to consider. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our communication isn't connecting because we are standing on different platforms. While I'm sure we are both focused on consensus in creating a better encyclopedia, it appears to me that we have a difference of opinion over how that consensus should be reached. I don't believe that consensus should be adopted from authority figures or majority rule. I think that individual expression is vital to a healthy consensus, but that acceptability is different than preference. When I said above that "I move to continue this discussion on the talk page of the article," I was expressing my preference. I was not expressing what I would find acceptable, which is a much larger set of possible actions that I tolerate in order to move forward as a community. Expression of my preference will never be dictated or repressed by Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. If applying the guideline to this particular instance doesn't make sense, I will speak my mind about that. Yet, because my tolerance level on this subject is without bounds, I will go with whatever the group (not you or a guideline) decides. *Peace Inside 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Lar was objecting to your suggestion that the discussion of the page's name should continue on the article's talk page, but to your assertion that the AfD had "obviously failed" (and the subheader "AfD Failed").  Although it's a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the voting to date, it's still possible that an influx of new editors will come in with compelling arguments as to why the article should be deleted.  Therefore stating "AfD Failed" before the closure process has finished gives the appearance of presumption, not to mention incivility.  You are, of course, free to discuss your views or preferences about the discussion or about process; however, it might be more productive to express those views at a page dedicated to that subject, rather than suggesting that the process be ignored or contravened on a page that is operating within it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. Calling this AfD "over" is premature, per the process. (although I suspect it will come out the way it's trending, and I hope it does, it is not over yet) Thank you Josiah Rowe! The other bit of my comment is to say that if consensus of the article participants is that it be moved to a different name, the fact that it is under AfD does not prevent movement, but it's considered polite (and part of the process) to make sure that the move leaves a redirect in place from the old name so that people can find the renamed article. A minor point but one I felt worth repeating because doing so when you move is politeness to AfD participants. Hope that helps. (also, for what it's worth, I'd rather see the article remain unrenamed, this is how I know the concept best, and further when I called for cites, I'm not calling the term into question... I think there are cites out there that just haven't been found or put in yet) And finally, I agree, process should guide us, not rule us but with hundreds of these discussions a week, using process really helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that we should make a decision about renaming the article here. Editors should be given a chance to participate in that discussion before it is enacted. Anyone could figure out that an AfD for this article would fail, which is why there were so few people giving their opinion, but a rename has some chance of succeeding. The dozens of people involved with this article should have a chance to let their voices be heard on the discussion page of the article, where they would expect a discussion about renaming to take place. *Peace Inside 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Josiah, given that the person who created this AfD didn't even vote for the article's deletion, I think it's fair to tell people that they don't have to waste any more time on it. I live by the golden rule and I would appreciate someone else doing the same for me. If you can tell me that you honestly believe that this discussion has any chance whatsoever of turning around, I will change the title of this section to encompass your views. When User:Encephalon wrote the rules of closure, he did so for groups that couldn't figure out for themselves how to proceed. Consensus of all members grounded in common sense is always better than a rule. *Peace Inside 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peace, I'm sure that your intentions in saying the AfD had failed were good.  And no, it doesn't seem at all probable to me (although it is technically possible) that the conversation will turn around.  That said, I tend to think that bypassing established processes that run reasonably well tends to cause more unnecessary agita than letting them run.  But that's just a question of style, I suppose.  And I do agree that the naming issue is better discussed at Talk:Science fiction Western than here (with Lar's caveat that the article should be locatable by AfD participants).  I think we're just talking about style at this point. It's not a big deal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Failed 

message: It is common for articles to be improved while on AFD. Adding sources and/or cleaning up and/or renaming can help to both "save" the article and improve Wikipedia. The end result of AFD is generally either no article, or a better article. The latter sounds certainly appropriate here. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some remarks

message: I understand the comments calling for the article to be rewritten based on reliable sources.  But I don't really understand the arguments for renaming the article.  Why is Science fiction Western more problematic than Science fiction sitcom, Comic science fiction, revisionist Western, etc.? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement on this. There's a point made on the article's talk page that Space Western isn't as inclusive as Science Fiction Western (it would shut out Westworld for example) and I think that's spot on as well. My hope is that adding sources for the term will satisfy those that have issues and that the current AfD thinking will be the consensus. ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not about including as many shows as possible!  The point is using a term that actually exists, pretty much everyone has heard of this thing called a Space Western where as Science fiction western seems enough like a made up term for a bunch of stuff that it ended up on AfD. Sure there are lots of movies books and shows that you could get away with calling a sci-fi western but if you take out the space westerns do you really have enough left to call it a genera?  Is it a term that anyone actually uses in the industry?  If not no matter how descriptive the term is wikipedia is not in the business of popularizing new terms, I think this impression is why the original suggestion if Influence of Western on science fiction was made. Dalf | Talk 10:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section below this one says basically the same thign I just said. Dalf | Talk 10:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did provide several links with examples of "science fiction Western" being used. (I admit that it's most commonly used in reference to Firefly and Serenity.)  I don't think it's a new or rarely used term, but I accept that "space Western" may be more common. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for renaming? 

message: Space Western sounds like a great prescriptive term. Do we have descriptive examples of current usage too? *Peace Inside 16:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand exactly what that means, even after reading our article on it.  Is it the difference between being defined by usage and being defined by an actual physical definition?  If you're looking for historical precedent for the term, this one is probably the earliest I remember seeing.-Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linguistic description is how a term is used, including common "incorrect" usage. Prescription is the "correct" meaning of a term, even if nobody uses it that way. People with a limited knowledge of relativism claim that "correct" and "incorrect" notions of a definition cannot exist because absolute truth does not exist, but these people do not understand the practical implementation of relativism. When it comes to language, "correct" and "incorrect" refer to how useful the terms are for the purpose of conveying information. Obviously a common definition of the term must be adopted within a group to enable efficient exchange, but the term must also convey a unique and concise bit of information. An optimum language must have a distinct term for every concept and a distinct concept for every term. Viewing the language as a whole and empowering it for optimal efficiency by making every word really mean something is the realm of linguistic prescription. *Peace Inside 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Space western is a term I have heard alongside other SF genres like space opera.  >47k Google hits: .  It seems appropriate, unless you want to take it wider still and look at all examples of Western plotlines in non-Western fiction, which might well be casting the net too wide. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescription