(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 332:
Line 332:
:::I moved it because I thought about it again, and decided that since [[Talk:So Long (AKB48 song)#Requested_move]] had dealt with exactly the same set of issues without opposition, an RM discussion was superfluous.
:::I moved it because I thought about it again, and decided that since [[Talk:So Long (AKB48 song)#Requested_move]] had dealt with exactly the same set of issues without opposition, an RM discussion was superfluous.
:::If you want to have a rerun of the previous discussion, then per [[WP:BRD]], feel free to revert. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::If you want to have a rerun of the previous discussion, then per [[WP:BRD]], feel free to revert. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks., I'll revert. :-)<br />There have been similar discussions with different results:
::::It all depends on who notices it. And not many people do. I think it is unfair to people who do other things except constantly monitoring their watchlists and page move discussions. I think when people who contribute to the pages moved by [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] come back and see what happened, they are mostly annoyed. Cause if they wanted to move the pages, they would have done it already. If [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] wants to improve Wikipedia, he should propose a rule for disambiguating titles with punctuation marks instead and discuss it with as many people as possible. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I moved it back. I would have moved it to [[Bingo! (AKB48 song)]] to avoid future discussions, but I can't cause there is edit history. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.
I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to
leave a message on my talk page.
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Discussion closed. This procedurally flawed move request did not produce a consensus to move, by any measure. No amount of badgering me will alter that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About your closing RM, on pagesarticle talk[1] and WP talk[2]. Of course the split is unfortunate. You even mention it "a procedural disaster". If it were really that bad, why not reorder the RM e.g. by relisting, by requiring proper listing, or something else. I already mentioned that in the nom listing and in the end. My question is: (how) did this procedural issue influence the outcome in any way? -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
`:Hi DePiep[reply]
This is a fairly basic aspect of consensus-forming, per WP:MULTI. Splitting a discussion has several disruptive effects:
Even if editors have spotted that there are multiple simultaneous discussions on the same issue, they may not want to waste their time posting the same comment in two places. That means that neither discussion includes the full range of views expressed.
Editors posting in either location may be unaware of the full scope of the nomination, which may alter their assessment of the proposal.
There is a risk of a different results at each location, with neither discussion representing the actual consensus of editors.
In this case, the proposal was rejected at each location. Even reading the two discussions as a whole, I find only 3 editors opposing your proposal, and only one supporting it. That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it.
When a proposal is made with serious procedural flaws, the resulting invalidity of the consensus means that the outcome is to restore the status quo ante. In this case that is exactly the same result as happens from either weighing each discussion separately, or from weighing them together.
So I see no reason to expect that a relisting would lead to a different outcome.
As with any failed proposal, it may be raised again after some time, provided that any new nomination clearly and prominently links to the previous discussions and notes their outcome. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your reasoning is, in short and in my words, "discussion content & outcome showed no need for a procedural corrective action". I will make remarks about the closing process first, and after that point to the actual discussion, since that content is part of the closure.
the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. No, I did not (me being the nominator). The article talkpage notified and linked to the single point of discussion page [3], as advised in WP:MULTI you mentioned. It happened that two other contributors started arguments below that notification Smokey JoeXoloz. So actually other editors initiated the split. If anything, opening that thread should have been judged out of procedure (and could have been corrected easily).
the proposal was rejected at each location. That is a curious statement for both pages. The article talkpage counts two !votes, and your conclusion clearly does not use the discussion following (it is a simple votecounting; more on one "me too" !vote below).
About the WT Elements location, the rejection statement is even more strange. There were three contributors (nom + 2). Their positions were 2:1 favouring the change. Even if one would discharge feline1's comment for being improperly formatted (more on this below), the score would be 1:1. That still would not support an unqualified "rejection" conclusion. And that is weighing feline1's contribution as zero; any "little weight" you read in there would tip the scale in favor of the change to say 1.01:1. The closing did not mention argumentations.
User:feline1 supported the proposal [4]. Afterwards here, you state that feline1 "chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". First feline1 clearly stated their opinion, and I do not know of any guideline that allows !votes to be discarded for being 'not formatted as a !vote'. Quite the opposite: a closing editor is supposed to consider the arguments given, more than judging their formatting (WP:RMCI). So, not only did you resort to vote counting, you also choose to reject opinions for being not formatted as a !vote. Against such incidental and opportunistic logic, I cannot argue.
Actually feline1 did add a new argument: "it should have been done years ago! ... Wikipedia's early years ... fixing it yet". That makes this comment rejection even more strange, noting that you did not reject the "me too" !vote by Xoloz, which did not add any substantial argument. Feline1 is a long-term contributor to WP Elements btw.
All together, these are illogic argumentations you made from the discussion. Since a wrong content perception lead to a wrong procedural conclusion, I now will make some notes on the content.
My nomination and subsequent contributions stated these steps: 1. the scientific name for the subject is: "period 1" (as an example for the range period 1 – period 9", obviously). 2. That is the firstly proposed article title by WP:ARTICLETITLE. 3. Then and only then, for WP:DISAMBIGUATION reasons, there could be a "(dab)" term needed in the Wikipedia page title, like making it "period 1 (periodic table)". However, since Period 1 is undisputed as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no disambiguation term is needed. These are WP guidelines to be applied.
None of the three opponents disputed step 1, step 2 or step 3. Opposing arguments were asking to clarify the scientific name in the page title, bypassing or misreading titling and disambiguation guidelines. Change a title for to make it recognizabile for readers is not a guideline. It would even change the existing scientific name! Also, the linguistic problems with construct "periodic 1 element(s)" were not resolved.
Concluding, I described that your assessment of the discussion (content) showed serious flaws. Since you based the procedural outcome on that, that is misguided too. I propose you re-asses the discussion from zero, and conclude either a "do move" (I am serious) or a procedural solution with a reopening/rejudgement, like relisting/procedural close/reorganise a new listing, etc. (In this last option, I don't have a clear idea about which procedural step would fit; suggestions are welcome). -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite bizarre to learn that my vote on a subject was discounted because I didn't use some arcane piece of wiki-markup. May I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BUREAU#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy ? I have been editing wikipedia since 2004 and I have never heard of "!vote". I guess I'll be told off it I don't assume good faith, but that leaves little else to assume other than obtuse daftness.--feline1 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bucket loads of bad faith here from feline1 and DePiep, so I will be blunt.
WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.
I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.
What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.
DePiep, that means following the conventional procedures to ensure that move requests are discussed at only one location. I share your frustration that the process for multiple nomination is clumsy (not just at WP:RM, but also at WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD etc) ... but that's how it is. Not using it properly is no personal failing on your part, but it does create an impediment to proper consensus being formed.
Apart from the incoherence of a discussion split across 2 locations, there was no particular policy basis for discounting the !votes of one side or adding weight to another. So even if I had been closing purely on substantive rather grounds (rather than including procedural considerations), I would have had to accept that 3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference rejected the nom's arguments.
Feline1, bolding a clear preference for a particular is not an "arcane piece of wiki-markup". It's one of the simplest pieces of wiki-markup (three single-quote marks at either end of the bolded phrase, also achievable by a 1-click button at the top of the editing window), and it is routine at all RM, RFC and XFD discussions.
Both you: instead of complaining to the messenger who closed this mess, both of you would do much better to spend a few minutes learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your edit to Georgian rugby union teams, a complete dog's dinner now. I notice you never bothered to take it to the rugby union crowd either.
I see no need for admin intervention here. The IP is free to disagree, and if her remains unsatisfied with my answer, should follow WP:DR procedures. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following two articles you had edited is not stalking.
Your edit[6] to Huma Abedin added unsourced negative info to a BLP article, so it was correctly reverted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBarano should have left an edit summary explaining why they did this, but the edit itself was correct and needed.
Your attempt[7] to tag Susan L. Douglass for speedy deletion may or may not have been justified, but it was appallingly implemented. Again, it was correctly reverted.
As far as it being unsourced that is completey incorrect as it is well sourced in the article and the linked article Anthony Weiner sexting scandals has 77 sources. The revert was done not for lack of sources but disagreement about it being in the opening as it has been in the article for quite some time. Please read the article before making the accusation that it was unsourced as you are clearly the expert in formalities here. I simply put a brief statement in the intro. It appears you maybe unfamilar with Weiner. The disgraced politician is well known in America and unfortunately she is better known for her husbands pornographic sexting to young women than for any other reason. Her husbands lewd behavior has brought much undesired attention due to his fascination with sexting parts similiar to his name. It is quite ironic and made much press. I do not care that NBSB reverted it but is very well sourced in the article and others as well. It is also abundantly clear the only way the editor in question got to my other edit was by stalking my edits. I am calling it as a reasonable person would not some stack of wiki bureaucracy manuals. No one edited that article for 2.5 years. NBSB was monitoring that article due to proclivity to edit war and sought revenge. NBSB then reverts another article I had worked on as a unconstructive tit for tat. No question there and completely obvious. It may have been appalling performed but it definitely was abandoned, unsourced, and not notable. At least I made an attempt but as I noted I am no expert and as you pointed out again. However NBSB was malicious and the track record speaks for itself. It does not matter from this point on to me. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple.
Look, if you up your game and still feel stalked, get back to me. But right now you are complaining about the reversion of things you did badly, and that's not stalking. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will bite. Where did that rule that come from? Please cite your rule. Quoting your advice "accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple." --172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heres is the brief from BLP Wikipedia's sourcing policy, "Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." It does say it must be credible. It thouroughly met that definition with 77 sources in the main article. You stated: "If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation Wherever It Is Mentioned. Simple." It clearly does not state that. That goes against notation standards. I recommend the Chicago Manual of Style or MLA if you like for further clarification on what is proper notation. It does not have to be done "Wherever It Is Mentioned." You added that burdensome requirement. Although I may somewhat of a novice to wiki's often contradicting bureaucracy I am no novice with proper notation. Again it is well sourced in the article and the linked article. Again the NBSB was exercising ownership and "stalked my other edit" for malicious purposes. A reasonable person would see that clearly. Again I asked you to warn NBSB further as you had done 2 weeks previously. It appears you condoned their action by accussing me of "added unsourced negative info to a BLP article." That was not done as I pointed out it was already in the article and thoroughly sourced. I only added a few words from the main article into the opening, nothing new. Again I do not care that NBSB reverted that, that is an editorial disagreement and I did not feel edit warring was beneficial. The malicious behavior after that was my concern. It is never proper to go after someones edits because they did not like the one you made to an article they felt ownership of. NBSB did that, there is no question to that by a reasonable person. I am disappointed you failed to acknowledge this point and attacked my intentions on NBSB's page. Your accusation's toward my intentions were rashly made. I have clearly demonstrated that. An apology for accussing me of having negative intentions would be nice. Another one for adding unsourced material would also be nice. And again my main concern was the hounding (if stalking does not fit wiki's definition) of my other edits for malicious purposes. Stalk: "to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalk another definition would be to hound someone for malicious purposes. My use of English was proper. I clearly demonstrated it. I also clearly demonstrated many other issues other editors have had with the said editor. The greater mystery is why false unfounded accusations of intent would be leveled against someone who sought someone who was supposed to know wiki's bureaucracy and was familiar with the editor in question to look into the matter and consider issuing a warning. I did my research before bringing this to your attention and made it as easy as I could for you to follow. Then you made a thinly veiled false accusation about my intent which is unfounded and unconstructive and one reason I am here challenging it. I showed you NBSB's action and they speak for themself. I never met NBSB before this but I saw something that is unacceptable behavior. Possibly you assumed something else but it is better to stick with the facts and not get caught up in conjecture about possible motives. Sorry so long but I wanted to make my points very clear so as not to be accused of anything else. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Welcome to the fray... :)
Hi BHG, thank you for commenting on the Leilani Leeane discussion. I agree that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their sources, but there is unfortunately a lot of conflict over what sources are reliable, acceptable, or even genuine with regards to the Adult industry. I personally find it odd that there is such intensely applied double standard with regard to trade publications for the industry. Trade journals for a myriad of subjects are seemingly accepted everywhere else on the site, but are repeatedly impugned when it comes to anything porn or human sexuality related. Furthermore, these journals conduct themselves much like any other mainstream media outlet with regard to their editorial policies and choices, but no one seems to acknowledge that. As far as I am aware, no one has accused AVN magazine's Paul Fishbein of pushing a political agenda like has happened with Michael Bloomberg or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Anyway, its good to have an additional set of eyes on the articles. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, and about undiscussed speedies in general
Hi, thanks for closing Dakelh. Could you please have a look at Talk:Stawamus and consider what I'm saying there, and likewise on my section on reversion of undiscussed speedy moves - no matter how stale (LabattBlueBoy's contention on Talk:Stawamus is that because an obscure article which got speedied did so a long time ago (when nobody was looking) is justification for it to remain where it is; even though he, like the article's mover, cannot in fact provide any citations to prove THEIR case. Undiscussed controversial moves, no matter how "stale", should be rolled back IMO.....but even when they're not stale, I can never seem to get one rolled back. And am always faced by people being very obstructionist (and seeming to relish the part) without themselves having any sources to prove their position. Or thinking they do, but on close examination (as with Stawamus) they don't at all; and even though User:OldManRivers and I are from the area, our knowledge of this community is being rejected outright, with the suggestion that the article should be deleted. Is ant-native language chauvinism that entrenched and that bitter? If an article's name isn't English enough, then that community's name should be wiped off Wikipedia? The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument has been posited in one of these RMs, can't remember at the moment if it's this one; but when does that get shoved aside in recognition of a real-world convention covering hundreds of native-language placenames in Canada, some of very large communities. Are only the ones with 7's and other special characters going to be deleted because somebody's got their knickers in a knot about being hardline about Wikipedia being English-only ("speak white" is how that comes across in Canada btw)? When a common anglicism, still in use (and not archaic), is available as in re Kii?in->Keeshan, that's OK (sort of) but when one is NOT, as in the case of Sta7mes (where Stawamus is common but pronounced differently and never used for the community), then what? All I'm seeing/hearing is obstructionism and a real digging-in-the-heels about the right of white ) wikipedians to dictate to native communities what they're allowed to be called. As re a comment I made last night on the new RM at Talk:Squamish people while it may be that Wikipedia's job is not to advance or promote a term or a convention in modern Canadian English to use such terms, it's also not Wikipedia's job to promote archaicisms and mistaken names and resist changes that more recent sources prove are happening. Forcing the past on the present is not Wikipedia's job. Also in the context of what happened to native cultures, that their languages were beaten out of them, their communities' and their own personal names were changed by edict, for Wikipedia to continue to replicate those forced-change names and outright errors is just....wonked.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AjaxSmack accused me last night of attempting to WP:OWN the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish article- another case of making Skookum1 the target of criticism instead of answering to the points he raises. That's a new one, though. I've been around BC indigenous articles since 2007 or before and am among those who built the category hierarchy and article structure/content formats and am also among those who are knowledgeable about this particular area (and then some)...and the problems with these articles, to me, are coming from people who "OWN" guidelines and feel a compulsion to enforce them, ironclad rigid and not without a bit of power-tripping, and are obstinate about their own lack of facts, and who do not know the field, nor local geography, nor look around to what conventions on similar articles or related categories might be in place that their "have to" change is going to upset........nor have any respect for indigenous issues nor indigenous communities ("we don't care what they prefer to call themselves" is an oft-heard and kinda stupid refrain and whatever's in MOS that gets people saying that needs serious revision). The Fifth Pillar seems lost on everyone, though as I noted User:Phaedriel invoked it to shore up our creations of Category:Kwakwaka'wakw and the like, and also re OldManRivers' original Skwxwu7mesh title with all its diacriticals. And his creation Sta7mes and other community articles in what is now Category:Squamish people - which so far nobody from somewhere else armed with a monolithically-applied wiki guideline has come along to screw with; myself I'd strip the diacriticals off a few that still have them but that's a different matter than wiping the native names entirely; sure we have lots of archaic sources for Ustlawn instead of Esla7an but that doesn't mean the modern native spelling shouldn't be respected; it's also on Mission Indian Reserve No. 1, but as with Sta7mes/Stawamus Indian Reserve No. 24, that doesn't mean they're the same thing; nowhere near (see my comments about IR names vs communities-on-IRs in the Stawamus discussion). Or is WP:DISRESPECT a guideline somewhere? And since when does standing up for what is right constitute WP:OWNing?? I'm gonna get accused of polling, and ranting, so I'll leave now....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.
This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relisting
Hello BHG.
This is about the requested move at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's Super-G, which you recently relisted. There are sources backing up the request, two editors support the request, no editors oppose it, despite the RM having been around since 16 February. Two editors have raised a couple of questions, which I have replied to.
If the full 7-day waiting period is again required, then the move will not be done until 11 March. Given the backlog on WP:RM, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the pages?
So far, the nominator and 4 other editors participated in the discussion. Of those 4, two did indeed support the move, but neither offered any rationale beyond "per nom", which is usually regarded as a weak form of support (because it shows no evidence of having engaged with the rationale). WP:NOTVOTE, and "support per nom" is little more than a form of vote.
The other two editors both raised substantive questions about the evidence. So, there is no consensus at this stage, and if I had closed now I would have closed as "no consensus". It seemed better to relist and allow other editors an opportunity to express their views.
Ok, thanks. I guess I'm just eager to get the post-move fixes going.
Tell me, if I were to invite/remind the editors who raised questions, to see what they think after I've responded and added sources, would that be considered canvassing?
Join me in drafting an RfC on Disambiguation/Primary Topic?
Although I have immense respect for you as a Wikipedian, we seem to have very different philosophies regarding disambiguation and primary topic issues. I would like to craft an RfC to gauge the consensus of the community on the degree to which we should prefer either primary topic designations or disambiguation pages for certain kinds of situations. We apparently have divergent views on whether hatnotes are effective for navigation (I think hatnotes are great for that, but you and other editors have suggested that they are too easily glossed over, and are not useful when set atop a very large and slow-loading page, which I agree is a concern).
I would also like to float some specific ideas - for example, that even though Apple is a primary topic, links to Apple should be piped through Apple (fruit), so that it is easy to find errant links intended for the company, or other less common uses. I note also that when Wikipedia articles are accessed through certain mobile devices, only the first section of the article initially shows up, and the other sections load individually. Perhaps pages like Apple and George Washington should initially load a shorter portion on every platform, so that a reader looking for the company or the university will not need to wait for the entire page to load for the hatnote information to be presented. Perhaps for an article like Apple, the hatnote should be made more prominent and dynamic, and the disambiguation information should be kept in a collapsed template in the hatnote, rather than on a separate page. These are just some thoughts that I have had on the topic, but I would like to have an RfC to tease out all of the reasonably possible options, and to see what is likely to work the best. I feel that if we write something together and can agree on its language, we will end up with a very neutral and informative description of what is in dispute, and what issues need clarification. Cheers! bd2412T15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, and for the suggestion. I agree in principle with the idea of an RFC, but some of your suggestions fill me with horror. My initial reaction was that they are straw men, and although I don't believe at all atht you intend them that way, I would be horrified if anyone suggested that the fruit was not the primary topic for apple. I think that floating that in an RFC would be regarded as so silly that it would prejudice readers against the rest of any proposal.
My concern is that while many editors are articulate exponents of the benefits of selecting a primary topic, some of their arguments are misplaced, and there is a strong tendency to overlook the downsides. That leads to primary topics being selected at far too low a threshold.
Screenshot of the Wikipedia page en:Apple As to hatnotes, look at this screenshot of the page Apple. I have compressed it to 1/3 of the original size in each dimension, so it is only 11% of the original area, and the text is illegible. My point is to not read, but look at the visual prominence of the various elements. Notice how the hatnote doesn't stand out. In descending order, the most prominent items are the picture, the infobox, the heading and the table of contents. The hatnote is one of the least prominent items on the page. As Nielsen repeatedly reminds web designers, people speed-read web pages, so care needs to be taken.
One idea I have been toying with is the notion of a "near-primary topic"; something which isn't far enough ahead of the combination of all the others to be a primary topic, but is still significantly more important than any other individual topic. That topic should be listed at the top of the dab page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already routinely list the most prominent topics at the top of the dab page (see Phoenix, Mercury), but we are still taking those readers to a dab page instead of an article. With respect to those topics, it is unavoidable, as there is no possibility of determining a primary topic. With respect to Apple, I completely agree that the fruit is the primary topic and do not mean to suggest otherwise, but the computer company is a very strong second (and there are dozens of other meanings). Someone who types "Apple" while searching for the company will need be on a very long page on the fruit with, as you have noted, a hatnote that doesn't particularly jump out. If we could somehow make the hatnote more prominent, that would make it easier for the errant reader to find what they were looking for. If we could make a shorter version of the article on the fruit load first, that would also reduce load time and make the hatnote more prominent as a component of the page. Of course, then the reader who was actually looking for the fruit would need to click something else to load the rest of the article (unless they found the information they were looking for just by reading the lede. With respect to Apple (fruit), this is a redirect to Apple; if every link referring to the fruit was piped to Apple (fruit), the page would still be at Apple, but it would immediately be apparent which incoming links were probably intended to point to Apple, Inc., because they would not have (fruit) in them.
We also need to consider the range of disambiguation pages themselves. Some dabs are very easy to use (Heavy metal clearly and distinctly lays out the major possibilities), while others are pretty horrible (good luck finding a particular John Smith). I think we can develop ideas that will improve the nuance with which these pages are presented, and with which primary topic determinations are made. Some of my ideas may be a bit out there, but they might inspire practical advances. bd2412T20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Variation/Shades move
I'm sorry I fragmented the move discussion. I have never been in this situation. I would have moved these pages myself if I have could done so myself, as this was the consensus anyway in the [discussion from 2011] I linked to. I thought this was a "no-brainer" (and quite a few people agreed). It was quite a bit of work putting all the pages together and sorting the mess out – I have no interest in doing it all over again only to be shot down on another technicality I have overlooked. Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Nowhere does WP:MULTI state that such move requests have to be closed with "NO CONSENSUS" – especially considering as there was quite clearly major support for unifying of these pages. I find your behaviour quite bureaucratic, disruptive and cynical, closing the discussing when the reason you have given is so contra-factual. You have written that you would be happy to help, but after your help so far don't be too sad if I forgo any future help from you. Tony Mach (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion closed. Learn some manners, and learn how consensus-forming discussions work, and stay off my talk page. Further posts here from this editor will be reverted unread. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May I suggest we seek another admin's opinion on this matter? You've unilaterally closed the discussion, and deleted further comments, characterising them in bad faith as "badgering", despite there clearly being a lack of consensus amoungst editors. I also find it patronising that you claim I don't know how to use bold text - I have been using it on here for about 10 years. What I said I was unaware of was "!vote" syntax. Although I guess you'll just delete this too /sighs/--feline1 (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus-forming discussions are routinely closed unilaterally. There are some exceptional circumstances where a group of admins may close a discussion, but they are very rare. If you are referring to the discussion on my talk page, then it's simple: per WP:OWNTALK, I am entitled to close any discussion on my talk page, and to delete any comments. The editnotice on this page] clearly says in large type "Disagreement is not abuse. But if you post abuse, I will probably close the discussion without making a substantive reply."
As to bad faith, in your first post here you chose to accuse me of "obtuse daftness". If you choose make a personal insult in your first comment on the closure, don't be surprised that your conduct is labelled as badgering.
Similarly, your later comment was abusive, so I deleted it.
If you want to contest a closure, the first step is to ask to closing admin to explain their closure. Per WP:ADMINACCT, I did that, promptly, and have not been persuaded to change my decision. You are quite entitled to disagree, but you are not entitled to abuse me in the hope of changing my mind.
Well, as usual with Wikipedia these days, it's easier to just disengage - I feel like I'm talking to a cult member who just keeps peppering their sentences with dogma phrases, none of which quite make objective sense to a rational outsider. If I request a move review, I'll probably just get more of the same. It's quite clear you were more interested in bureaucratic convenience, and have minimal knowledge of chemical nomenclature, never mind critiquing the clunky linguistics dreamt up in 2003 by a 14 year high school student from Hong Kong (which was what we were trying to improve). Also, for someone whose interests include "gender neutral language", you have an amusing choice of user name :) --feline1 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feline1, if you want to edit here, consensus-building is the basis of how wikipedia works, and civility is an important part of that. Peppering your contributions with insults doesn't get you very far in any consensus-building exercise.
You seem determined to ignore just about every aspect of wikipedia procedure, including weighing consensus. As closing admin, my role is to weigh the consensus, not impose a supervote. Any knowledge I do or don't have of chemical nomenclature is utterly irrelevant, because the closing admin's role is quite explicitly not to impose their own views of the topic, or to form any opinion on whether a title is clunky.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there. You recently closed the RM at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Can I ask what threshhold(s) you believe should be reached to demonstrate that a name is the common name in reliable sources? And over what timeframe? (In this case, the name change is barely a month old.) Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is any guidance on duration, or that it is necessary. WP:COMMONNAME says "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change", and that seems to me to better that setting an arbitrary time period.
OK. You should be aware that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA notes under its final criterion, "Consistency", that "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.", which is what the move proposed. But I'll make sure to demonstrate clearly that the proposed title is the COMMONNAME the next time around. Out of curiosity, can a move request only be completed if the nominator's rationale is accepted as sound reasoning, or if another (better) reason arises in the discussion? Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consistency is one of the goals (not rules) set out at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Two editors alluded to that, but it is a much weaker argument than COMMONNAME. I attach no weight to it when the consistency being sought is not a consistency of naming pattern (such as "List of Foo" for standalone lists, or "Foo FC" or football clubs), but is actually based on a claimed consistent use of WP:OFFICIAL. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Wikipedia:MRV#Common Gull. Not clear to me why there is any reason for a move review. But one possible outcome of a move review is Relist. Would you consider agreeing to a relist? In my opinion that might allow the review to be closed, to give time for WP:BIRDS to get their act together. According to what people are saying in the review, there is some reason to follow the IOC naming. But unless there is a clear RfC within the BIRDS project, which someone actually links to in their RM vote, it's hard to see how the closer is to be influenced by that. So if we close the MRV on the merits, it would have to be an Endorse (in my opinion). The Relist would just be a shortcut to help those affected by the decision to reach a more solid consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, EdJohnston and Snowman, for your messages. The closure was a fairly straightforward case of no consensus, and since nobody seems to be disputing that, I don't see at this point that I have anything to add to the move review.
As to EdJ's suggestion of relisting, I would usually think that was an option worth considering. However, in this case the dissension is not so much over this particular topic, but over the underlying question of whether to follow IOC names, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). That has manifested itself in a long series of RM disputes, many of them verbose and some of them heated, as editors rehash the same question.
AFAICS, an early relisting of the Common Gull discussion would simply return everyone to the same pointless cycle of using a specific instance to resolve a policy question. It would be far more productive to open an RFC to see whether there is a broad consensus in support of the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use_the_most_common_name_when_possible that " Wikipedia uses the bird species and subspecies common names published by the International Ornithological Congress at the World Bird Names database". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, BHG,
This is a minor problem but it is bugging me and I hope you can help. I've been working on categories of WikiProjects and came across Category:Defunct WikiProjects and arranged for these defunct WikiProjects to appear in alphabetical order. However, despite using {{DEFAULTSORT:X}}, a few still appear under WikiProject X (so under W, not X).
I realize that few people check out categories filled with abandoned projects but I'm more interested in figuring out what I'm doing wrong or what I am missing. Is there a hidden template or code that regular editors can't see? {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} works most of the time to alphabetize the articles or categories within larger categories but, when it doesn't, do you know why?
Thanks for any answers you can provide. LizRead!Talk!18:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can look atCategory:Defunct WikiProjects page and see all of the pages that are filed under WikiProject and not X. I placed {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} on every page in this category and most of them were filed under X but if you look at the category page there are about a dozen you can see that are filed under "WikiProject". LizRead!Talk!18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DEFAULTSORT is overridden by a sort-key applied specifically to any individual category. Here's one example I fixed by setting a better sort key. Alternatively I could just have removed the sort key relied on DEFAULTSORT.
D'uh! I always assumed that the "default" would have precedence over any keys set for individual categories.
But the problem with categories like Category:Inactive WikiProjects is that the categories aren't added manually, they come as part of a template so you can only set a default key. So, a sort key applied to a separate category will have precedence over a default sort key, even when it's not set for a template category? Unfortunately, depending on the category, different keys need to be set. I guess a case by case judgment will need to be made.
The categories coming from templates are easily dealt with too. Just add the category manually, with the sort key you want, at the bottom of the page (or at least below the template). The last supplied sort key will be the one used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Type 45
Editor used the wrong link when citing a source. Somebody else fixed it. Apparently it's my fault that when the editor was twice reverted for a broken citation, they didn't fix their own mistake. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
You queried the reference I added to this page saying in your edit summary "claim thar [sic] "Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers" not supported by referencedsource"
On page 6 of the referenced source the NAO states "The delays on the Type 45 destroyer project mean that the Department is still actively operating five Type 42 destroyers which offer a much more limited capability."
Then on page 12 the NAO states "In an intensive attack, a Type 45 destroyer would be able to simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than the remaining Type 42 destroyers operating together."
I have added the page number to the reference to clarify but I'm having trouble understanding how you thought this was not covered by the source. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification.
Thanks, Mark83 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have gone out of my way to explain my reference to you can you show me the same respect by discussing rather than reverting my edit? Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mark83, I reverted and was writing my reply when called away.
I reverted you with the edit summary "cited quote does not exist on referenced page", which in any case I had hoped would not require further explanation.
I see that another editor has subsequently replaced your reference with a ref to a document which does actually contain the text quoted. That solves the problem this time ... but in future you could save yourself and others a lot of hassle by ensuring that you reference the correct document. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point is the respectful thing to do would have been to explain here first since I had reached out to you.
Whilst I take your point about referencing the correct document it strikes me that you must have known the link to the cover page of the document contained the link to the correct material. You could have saved yourself and others a lot of hassle by replacing the correct url and sending me a friendly note to point out my honest mistake! Thanks Mark83 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know. I looked at the page you linked to, and it didn't contain the text you cited, which should have been obvious to you.
Every editor takes responsibility for their own edits. It's not the responsibility of other editors to wander around the web in the hope of finding the URL you might have meant, rather than the one you actually cited. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reference I gave was for a report titled "Providing Anti Air Warfare Capability: the Type 45 destroyer". The erroneous link, which I apologise for, takes you to a page titled "Providing Anti Air Warfare Capability: the Type 45 destroyer" with a link Full report (pdf - 695KB). So whilst I made I mistake, the extent to which you would had have had to "wander around the web in the hope of finding the URL you might have meant, rather than the one you actually cited" is unclear to me. Should a fellow administrator not have been a role model for dispute resolution by replying to me here? Do you doubt I would have quickly corrected the error when it was pointed out? Your instinct to revert would have been understandable if I was not acting in good faith - I think it's clear from my edit summary on the page & my first comment here that I was acting in good faith. Mark83 (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were acting in bad faith, and nothing I wrote suggested that you were. I reverted for the simple, stated reason that the linked page did not contain the text you claimed it contained ... and as explained, I was called away before I could make a fuller reply to you.
You made a mistake, which is fine; we are all human, and mistakes happen. But please stop complaining that instead of fixing your own mistake, you chose to insist that I should have read what you meant rather than what you actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My complaint is not that you should go around Wikipedia fixing others mistakes. If I had realised my mistake I would have fixed it!! My complaint is that instead of engaging you reverted, simple as that. I'm sorry to say but I have severe reservations about your attitude. e.g. the pettiness of "despite the request in my editnotice, you didn't provide a link to the page you refer to, which I guessed was Type 45 destroyer. Links help." (you didn't have to "guess" what page I was referring to - it was the title of the discussion. Also the way you closed the discussion here - it's your prerogative but the way you have gone about I find very rude. Mark83 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it because I thought about it again, and decided that since Talk:So Long (AKB48 song)#Requested_move had dealt with exactly the same set of issues without opposition, an RM discussion was superfluous.
It all depends on who notices it. And not many people do. I think it is unfair to people who do other things except constantly monitoring their watchlists and page move discussions. I think when people who contribute to the pages moved by In ictu oculi come back and see what happened, they are mostly annoyed. Cause if they wanted to move the pages, they would have done it already. If In ictu oculi wants to improve Wikipedia, he should propose a rule for disambiguating titles with punctuation marks instead and discuss it with as many people as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
