Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

The 'denying the antecedent' section makes the whole essay unenforceable[edit]

The 'denying the antecedent' section basically says that you cannot dismiss arguments that are arguments to avoid. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Essays are not supposed to be "enforceable". The purpose of the essay is to list weak arguments (especially when presented without background to support them), not just necessarily invalid arguments. And the point of the section is that weak arguments (especially cherry-picked to be so) on one side of a deletion debate do not imply that the other side is right. Keφr 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • While I wouldn't go that far, I agree that section is pretty weird and unclear, especially compared to the relative lucidity of the rest of the sections. It isn't even really about denying the antecedent in the debate-club sense, as most of the examples are more about how votes shouldn't be based solely as a reaction to the nom or other votes (such as "the voter above me said something dumb so I believe the article should be kept/deleted"). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Violations" - a word to avoid?[edit]

Can we remove all variants of "violate" from this essay? I think "violation" itself is a word to avoid in the vast majority of policy, guideline, essay, edit summaries, and discussions for several reasons.

My suggestion? Saying "Against (policy/guideline/discussion)" is better, since it infers an action against consensus. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • No way. Are you joking? In English, "violate" is a common way to describe things not in accordance to rules, legal or otherwise: parking violation, traffic violation, rules violation in sports, etiquette violation, dress code violation, protocol violation, access violation in computers, etc etc etc etc. Speaking frankly, I'd say anyone who regards a common word as "rhetorical dynamite" is probably too sensitive to edit constructively in our collaborative environment. You're also overstretching IAR: While our rules can be bent when there is reason to believe one's actions are within consensus, Wikipedia DOES have rules and it's very much possible to violate them--accounts are blocked, banned, and otherwise sanctioned for rules violations all the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so you want to call everything a violation, so it's a common word to you. You're welcome to revise the WP:Five pillars, then, both to remove the thing about civility, and the thing about (quote) "no firm rules". No problem, go ahead. Just FYI I was talking about replacing "violate" where appropriate, in the community consensus policies and guidelines. It's not about political correctness, it's about the word just being wrong to use in the context of consensus in the majority of cases. I really don't care if you think putting a fork on the wrong side of the plate is a violation of etiquette, you're wrong. The majority of the time, so-called "violations" at Wikipedia amount to no more than a misplaced fork, whether deliberate or accidental. It's not a violation, because no violence or damage occurred: it's trivially fixed with an edit, in most cases. Overuse devalues the word. Some things are violations, but most things just aren't. Contrary to anyone being "oversensitive", calling everything a "violation" is very big-brotherish and nanny-statish, when you thoughtfully consider it. --Lexein (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy is an entirely inappropriate surprise link for an administrator to sling at a long term editor in good standing, with no blocks, DR losses, or behavioral warnings (though I have been accused of attacking when I've been attacked). --Lexein (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hi. Wikipedia is a place in which millions of people come in contact each day. We see that some of them literally violate every single law, rule, stricture, code of conduct, statute or guideline in existence. Sad, but happens. Use of force is sometimes necessary, even if it is preventative, not punitive. I such environment, "avoid using 'violate'" is the first rule that is ignored. Also, WP:IAR says "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" one may ignore it. The trouble is: I never find such rules. Rules are good. Don't violate them; the result is not improvements. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, some people. Not all; that's one of my points. And ok, use of force is sometimes necessary. Not always; that's my other point. About WP:Editor retention: it seems to me that, when a simple decrease in the advocacy of a pillar-deprecated notion might help slow loss of editors, might contribute to an increase in enjoyment of editing, and might improve the tone of the project, it's strange to see experienced editors pass up the opportunity. --Lexein (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello again. I grant you that sometimes. But if "avoid using 'violate'" become a rule, that "sometimes" becomes a "never". As for editor retention, it means letting them say "violate" and not minding them. I am generally not a proponent of prescriptive language, which involves jumping on everyone and correcting them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
All I'm asking for is reduction, not elimination of "violate" and derivatives. I never meant elimination of "violate", as you may have seen in User:Lexein/Don't say "violate". It's like WP:DONTBITE - maybe it should just be part of that. Anyways, how about "Reduce use of "violate"" or "Use "violate" appropriately" or "Use "violate" sparingly"? Those titles didn't occur to me before. It's all about civility and hewing to the pillars, in my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I love what you are asking. Except I think your method of achieving it would yield the opposite. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIAL - where should it redirect to?[edit]

Currently WP:TRIVIAL redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. But this very page claims at the top that "WP:Trivial" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:Trivia. Also in this article it states that WP:TRIVIAL is a shortcut to the section I don't like it. So where should WP:TRIVIAL really redirect to? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT[edit]

Actually, a lot of the examples given as "I don't like it" seem like valid reasons for deleting something (trivia, "cruft," superfluous, etc.)--Atlantictire (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. I don't see a "superfluous" there but "trivia" and "cruft" are both contentious labels used to offend. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • One person's trivia is another person's significant data. Plus, there's no real measure that makes something "trivia" or "cruft" in absolutes--determination is merely a matter of personal preference. Hence: "I don't like it" is the best classification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Arguments like "trivia", "cruft" etc at least indicate actual real arguments such as WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like. That means they don't belong with non-arguments like "It's against my religion". I agree they should be removed. Reyk YO! 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's exactly why the author has thought they must be avoided: This essay has another section called Just pointing at a policy or guideline in which it condemns using WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the like without an explanation as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • In that case, it should be covered there. It is misleading to conflate completely vacuous IDONTLIKEITS like "it's embarrassing" and "it offends my religion" with policy based arguments whose only fault is being too terse. Reyk YO! 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • It is covered there; even there is a link. Only you seem to have missed it. (If you want an accurate address, look for "This is the converse to" with your browser's Find command and read the whole paragraph.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

          P.S. The article intro also covers the topic; and to avoid some people missing it, there is a link to intro in that section too. How can you miss all this? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

          • Thanks for the arrogance and condescension. I agree that we should probably remove or rewrite those paragraphs as well. If I say something should be deleted because it is cruft, I usually mean that it is poorly sourced, overly detailed original research. It is not acceptable for anyone to claim that view is somehow equal in weight to someone saying "It's against my religion" or "It's annoying". Because if someone says "It's cruft" and is asked to clarify, they can always point to guidelines and policies that back that view up. That's why "It's cruft" belongs in the WP:JUSTAPOLICY section, if anywhere. But no amount of elaboration will make "It's against my religion" and "It's boring" a valid argument, so things like that belong in IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. They are two very different classes of arguments and do not belong together. Reyk YO! 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Wow! I has been a while since someone called me arrogant and condescending! I must say I am thrilled.

              However, apart from the fact that my comments were made with good intent and lightheartedness, you must put yourself at the other end of the pipe: While you think it is correct to says "It's cruft. ~~~~", closing admins think "Whoa! Chill dude!" and ignores the comment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree words like trivia and cruft are not bad words to be used in deletion discussions, but if they are used as tersely as the examples given without explaining why they may be trivia or cruft, that's as good as saying IDONTLIKEIT. I do believe removal is warranted, but we should make sure we caught commenters from just saying these terms without justification. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)