Talk:neutroclusion

RFD discussion: December 2022–January 2023
Tagged (as assumed misspelling), not listed. Equinox ◑ 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. See for example here, here and here. In each case the term neutroclusion occurs in combination with and . The first reference states explicitly that the names of these diagnostic conditions are formed with the ending clusion; I suspect this is the coining publication. The selection of that ending is unetymological (occlusion is not ob+ *clusion) but apparently deliberate. The variant  is less common.  --Lambiam 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lambiam. Binarystep (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If kept, please note the points above, regarding non-standard spelling and reasons for it. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept : no consensus for deletion. The nominated spelling is more common and even if it were ranked as a misspelling, we do keep common ones per WT:CFI, so no valid deletion ground identified. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking the above closure, because the required month has not passed. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As per RFD header, "except for snowball cases". It follows early closure is possible in snowball cases. Since the nomination has no plausible ground for deletion (common misspellings are kept anyway), and since there is also clear numerical consensus, there is snowball's chance in hell that this will be deleted, and therefore, the closure is in keeping with policy. Anyone who does not want to play little games like the above can reclose this, or alternatively, it can wait here for one more month; no problem. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol. Theknightwho (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dan's struck vote should be counted. DonnanZ (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * His vote hasn't been struck, because he didn't vote. Had he voted it would have remained. I don't think it will matter, anyway.Theknightwho (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You blocked him a few hours later, his contribution is as good as a keep vote. Behave yourself. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be fine with having editors that call (several) other users “harassers”, “frauds”, “incompetent”, “enemies of open society” and “forces for harm” (if they agree with you), but most of us aren’t. The fact you are so outraged at the fact I want to keep discussions open suggests a pretty obvious bias here, but the kind of extreme disruptive behaviour that Dan has brought (and which you are encouraging) is simply not fair on everyone else. I’m not engaging in this any further. Theknightwho (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see it, you're like a boy with a new toy (adminship). Fortunately there are some level-headed senior editors still around. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes you feel better. Theknightwho (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not generally a fan of speedy keeps or speedy closures but let's just give it a couple of weeks and keep this. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of the record and the reader, let us compare this RFD nomination to that of . "Bevis Marks" (to be archived to Talk:Bevis Marks) was nominated for RFD on 28 December and speedy-deleted on 31 December over two boldface keeps, in 4 days. In Bevis Marks, Donnanz and Dan Polansky (me) protested the process violation yet no administrator undid the deletion. In Bevis Marks, user account "Theknightwho" did not undelete the entry to prevent process violation but rather stated "Keep deleted" with zero rationale. We see what looks like a contradiction: in Bevis Marks, mere 4 days are fine for closure in the deletion direction despite 2 keeps, whereas in neutroclusion, 14 days are not fine for closure in the keeping direction.
 * There is another matter, and that is the RFD header. For many years, the RFD header used to say that one week is the minimum for RFD, and said nothing about speedy deletion; and that made a lot of sense to me, and it still does. This was changed in 2021 in a without a trace to objective verifiable evidence of consensus. As far as I am concerned, the 2021 edit is invalid, and I have no reason to believe this diff is supported by consensus, in part since it makes the process worse (by my assessment), and in part since there is no evidence of numerical 2/3-supermajority, and in part since no rationale for the process change was stated (that is, it was not stated why the process change is good). As far as I am concerned, therefore, the minimum RFD period is 7 days, and no RFD can be closed before 7 days, and in clear cases, RFDs can in fact be closed after 7 days. We must always hope rationality will prevail, and never give up. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD-kept again per obvious consensus. Since a month has passed now, the nominal (unreal) rationale for unclosing the previous RFD-kept no longer applies, and we can advance the RFD page and help make it smaller. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd love to know what's "unreal" about following the procedure given at the top of the page. Theknightwho (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)