Jump to content

User talk:Born2cycle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.98.51.57 (talk) at 04:58, 5 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Coherent reply policy

If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Iznik pottery

After a week the only ones objecting to my close were either involved in the discussion or have a history of disagreeing with me. Anyone still not satisfied, you may take it to MR. --В²C ☎ 23:19, 20 March 2017 (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.

An editor has objected to your closure of this move discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Turkish. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the latest comments at User talk:EdJohnston#Turkish. I consider this to be your closure not mine, so if you want to undo your close and relist, you can do so. If not then don't, but there is a chance somebody may take it to WP:MRV. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your closure as offered. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi - EdJohnston has misread Born2cycle's words. Born2cycle made no such offer. He only offered to revert the closure if a non-involved editor (or EdJohnston himself) thought the closure was an inappropriate closure. You are an involved editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:MRV. Looking at its archives, successful WP:MPV overturns seem all based on either WP:COMMONNAME arguments, or if the subject was controversial, or if the discussion had too short a time period. None of that is applicable here. This article is not on a controversial subject, the discussion had run its course, being already relisted; there was a majority for the rename; the majority cited policy to support their position; the objectors were unable to cite either sources or policy to support the old title; and the new title correctly follows the primary policy for article titles, WP:COMMONNAME. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your close and relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining. My offer stands. If an uninvolved editor think it was a BADNAC, I'll reopen. Needless to say, you are involved. --В²C ☎ 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a WP:BADNAC. Omnedon (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an opinion on the substance of this one and am uninvolved. I do agree that it looks like a close call between support and oppose, and probably not appropriate for a non-admin closure. I also strongly disagree with B2C that "COMMONNAME" is itself a policy reason. The close is therefore flawed and should be reverted; relist. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who actually thinks WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy should not be editing Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That statement seems needlessly inflammatory. Omnedon (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think what you have accused Born2cycle of is not? You need to present evidence to back up an accusation of BADNAC. If you think "evidence" is Dicklyon claiming WP:COMMONNAME is not the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles, then you are very mistaken! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that an editor made an inappropriate close is one thing. Stating that an editor should not be editing is quite another. Let's keep things calm. Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon claimed WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy reason, despite its link leading to a page stating "This page is about the policy for article titles"! All editors need to follow Wikipedia policies. While anyone can (and almost everyone has) at some time, out of ignorance of them or out of misunderstanding, involuntarily break them, but no editor should be consciously ignoring them. Editing here caries with it a requirement to edit according to Wikipedia's policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The history of how B2C has tried to push COMMONNAME to be the primary naming convention, and to demote the other WP:CRITERIA to be irrelevant, is collected at my page User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?#Early September – converting the recognizability section to COMMONNAME and subsequent sections. I think I understand pretty well what COMMONNAME is, but there's no policy that a title needs to be styled per a vote of sources. When B2C does a close based on his interpretation, which he has pushed (against great resistance) for nearly a decade, on an RM discussion that's clearly not achieved consensus, I feel that he is too close to a supervote. Anyway, we'll see if he follows through on his offer to revert it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"History" is the correct word. You are citing there edits made in 2009! This is 2017. If a policy that was formulated in 2009 is still the policy today, this is a strong sign it had been proven to be the correct policy and any issues regarding it are long settled. You need to cite something far more recent than 2009 to indicate there is still a credible ongoing issue that would exclude Born2cycle as being too close to that issue. Where is this "great resistance"? I've gone back as far as archive 50 - that's almost three years - and have seen nothing.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was borderline a BADNAC. I think the discussion was more incomplete than "no consensus". I am a little bothered by the article İznik titled so, and would be interested in seeing consistency between İznik-related/derivative articles discussed. I think it more productive for everyone unhappy to wait a few months and if still unhappy to open a new RM with a more comprehensive nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, badnac; B2C has a conflict of interest in pushing COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion, a battle he has waged ferociously for many years, and the discussion was clearly borderline, not consensus, so this was a supervote, essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion. The policy page is unambiguously clear on it: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above". If you want that policy changed, do it directly by initiating a discussion to get it changed. Until it is changed, you should be abiding by that policy and accept article title changes made based on the policy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not clarifying this earlier... Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me. Anyway, there is nothing precluding anyone from starting a more comprehensive RM as SmokeyJoe suggests, or to go to WP:MR. By the way, common name was in place long before I started contributing to WP: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" [1]. --В²C ☎ 19:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm involved in that sense. And so are you. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe either one of us can make objective RM decisions. My point, however, is that it is probably challenging for either one of us to be objective about the other, so we should refrain from making such judgements. Somebody objective, relative to ourselves, should decide whether one of us is being objective in a given RM decision, not us. That said, regarding something you said above, it's WP:DIACRITICS, not you or me, that provides guidance on diacritic use in titles: follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)., and I've made zero edits to that page. --В²C ☎ 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be disregarding a comment made at User_talk:EdJohnston#Turkish by User:Laurdecl, immediately following your offer to revert. Please do revert. Omnedon (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laurdecl was involved in the RM discussion I closed (thus obviously not an uninvolved editor), and I addressed that particular comment here: "I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining". --В²C ☎ 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you can claim @Omnedon: request to revert doesn't follow your own stated willingness, to revert, cf. @Dicklyon: @SmokeyJoe: In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me.". --В²C ☎ 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no history with this subject. I am uninvolved. My view is that the close was inappropriate, and you need to revert it as you offered. You made no such qualification at the time. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: no, sorry Born2cycle just needs encouragement to honor his word as he gave it to EdJohnston. Omnedon was not involved in the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first issue is the close, the second is the best title, the person comes third. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (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.

Post-hoc observations

@Tiptoethrutheminefield, EdJohnston, Dicklyon, SmokeyJoe, In ictu oculi, and Omnedon: Addressing this to everyone I noticed involved, because the misapprehension at issue is not uncommon, and I don't keep track of who's laboring under it at any given time: "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is a completely false statement, and one of the most strife-generating WP title policy interpretation errors (probably second only to the fallacy that COMMONNAME is a style policy). WP:COMMONNAME is not one of the WP:CRITERIA at all. Just go look. COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time). If a careful analysis of the COMMONNAME (the most common name in reliable, independent sources) shows that it fails, on balance, to meet the criteria, and another name meets them (or more of them) better despite being less frequent, then the real criteria absolutely, positively trump COMMONNAME, which is nothing but a probabilistic (and dispensable) shortcut to picking a promising candidate for the actual CRITERIA analysis. The analysis still has to happen, and that analysis – not "commonness" magically and by itself – is what AT policy says determines our article title. The most common name is highly likely to be the most natural, recognizable, precise, concise, and (at least in the everyday usage if not WP usage sense) consistent, or it probably wouldn't be the most common. Consequently this works in reverse order too; if you do no COMMONNAME analysis and just follow the criteria, odds are that what emerges as the selected title from that process with coincide with the most common names in sources. When it doesn't, it's usually because of a WP:PRECISE or WP:CONSISTENT concern (which are fairly WP-specific). Being among the real criteria, those concerns cannot be ignored to force usage of the COMMONNAME, or crappy things happen.

Learn this, feel it, absorb it, know it. You'll avoid a great deal of pointless RM drama, for many editors not just you.

The most common CRITERIA failure of COMMONNAMEs is PRECISE. This has long been known and understood, and it's why WP:NATURAL is a criterion in its own right (ahead of PRECISE), and why WP:AT front-loads the disambiguation section with WP:NATURALDIS: It is preferable to find a different, natural, somewhat less common name (if available), or if that fails, to use a more precise, naturally disambiguated version of the COMMONNAME (if available), in that order, than to resort to WP:PARENDIS, WP:COMMADIS, or WP:DESCRIPTDIS, which are all more awkward constructions. Failure to absorb that, and the resultant over-insistence on parenthetic disambiguation of the COMMONAME, all other possibilities be damned, seems to be the main thing that's gotten IIO into so much hot water lately. I'm still poring over the ANI thread, but the bulk of the complaints (about IIO rather than B2C) seem to be about ill-considered moves to such PARENDIS names (the rest seem mostly to be about forgotten cleanup steps).

But – and this is perhaps the key point – it isn't worth fighting about forever and making enemies over. It's a stress factory. Absent outright stupidity, the titles we're going to come up with are likely to be good enough, especially with redirects (readers do not really care). It's worth considering how much time youse all devote to winning particular article title fights and whether this is a good use of that finite resource. Especially stop obsessing over the COMMONNAME. Follow the criteria and, only when this fails, the disambiguation steps, as written. At this stage of the project's development, any one of the five real criteria (even CONSISTENCY, especially in categories with a boatload of similar articles and a lot of "robotic" maintenance to do) can be more important than using the marginally most common name when there are several common ones to choose from.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, S, for reminding people that "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is nonsense. I completely agree that this notion causes way too much trouble, and I don't know how it ever got started. COMMONNAME is a strategy for recognizability, one of 5 co-equal naming criteria. That's all. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, it's not one of the 5 at all. It's the default "first try" for finding a name statistically most likely to fit the 5 criteria (recognizable, natural, precise, concise, consistent). The entire "COMMONNAME is one of the CRITERIA" meme is poison. The confusion probably stems from the fact that RECOGNIZABLE translates logically to "use a common name people are likely to be familiar with" (as an actual requirement), while COMMONNAME is "first try the single most common name in RS" (as the first possibility to test against all 5 criteria), and various editors confuse these concepts. The COMMONNAME will always pass RECOGNIZABLE, by definition, but many recognizable names that also fit the other criteria will not be the most COMMONNAME in RS yet are sometimes actually more recognizable and may better fit some other criteria, especially PRECISE and CONSISTENT, though sometimes others (e.g. being more CONCISE or NATURAL in some cases).

A good example is probably Heart attack. In actually reliable sources that focus on and provide detailed information about (don't just mention in passing) myocardial infarctions, that medical term is by far the most common name, since most of these are medical sources. But "heart attack" is more concise (in at least three senses, and equally concise in one sense), more natural, more recognizable to more people, and equally precise for encyclopedic purposes. What a lot of editors don't realize, or forget, is that COMMONNAME is tied directly and specifically to independent sources reliable for the topic in question, while the criteria are not, and speak directly to reader expectations (though both PRECISE and CONSISTENT also speak to editorial maintenance as well as reader navigation). COMMONNAME does not mean "the most common name, period, including in self-published blogs, in slang, in office memos, etc." Thus there are many cases where the most common name in the applicable RS is only one of multiple recognizable ones, and is not the most recognizable to the bulk of our readers, nor the best with regard to the other criteria. Failure to understand this causes a great deal of pointless RM disputation, and a lot of poorly named articles.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the fact that arguments related to article titles often derive from pov warring by a particular editor or set of editors; and those editors have, in many cases, a much wider agenda that may little to do with the specific article in question. In almost all occasions, the choice of article title will be obvious. In the above case, every naming criteria, commonname or otherwise, supported the argument for the title change. The above case was nothing more than a disruptive waste of time by some editors who, because of their wider pov, simply refused to recognize the usage in ALL the sources that were being used to produce the article's content. Pointedly, they could not cite even a single usage example to support their own position - that is not a "despite being less frequent" title, SMcCandlish, it is a ZERO EXAMPLES OF USAGE title! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Oh, I'm hardly unaware of that effect (see Talk:Twente goose). Some people will even defy the sources right in front of their eyes if they're not getting the result they want. What I'm speaking to here is what the policy says and how to interpret it sanely, and as a general principle. I'm not trying to account for irrational human tantrums, or sneaky attempts at system-gaming, nor opposing a sensible outcome in this particular case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true - but we are here under the aftermath of a specific move, and the fact of us just continuing to discuss things in general has now resulted in a request to reverse the move (or at least reopen the discussion). A reversal if successful would result in an article having a title for which no examples of usage in reliable sources has been found. While I think the close decision was procedurally correct, I'm a bit dismayed that B2C's decision to be involved in that way (closing, rather than just expressing an opinion on the title) has brought with it this amount of historical baggage. All five naming criteria support the "Iznik pottery" title, so this COMMONNAME dissecting has no actual impact on the correctness of that specific title move. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish you say: "COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time)" and yet you say, "'"COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is a completely false statement". They mean the same thing. They probably should not have used "criterion" as it could be miscontrued as a reference to WP:CRITERIA, but what I understood by "COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion" is exactly what you wrote: "COMMONNAME is the default suggestion for the most likely way to arrive at a title that will best fit the actual criteria (and it is, 90+% of the time)" --В²C ☎ 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully; they do not and cannot possibly mean the same thing at all. The criteria are five specific, enumerated things in a section called WP:CRITERIA. WP:COMMONNAME is not among among them. It is, rather, a separate section of advice below the criteria, saying which potential title to first test against those actual criteria. In various cases the most common name does not pass one or more of these criteria and we use another, somewhat less common name. This is a fact. I can't really think of any clearer way to get this across, and cannot really understand how anyone else doesn't already understand it. Just read the policy. Maybe a direct analogy will help. I decide that the criteria for a great girlfriend are: 1) good and quirky sense of humor versus being dour and moody; 2) attractive (by my standards); 3) well-educated and open-minded; 4) skilled, gainfully employed, and easily re-employable; and 5) shares many of my interests. [Those are, in fact, my actual criteria.] My sister advises, "The number-one way to find someone like that is to ask your entire circle of friends 'Who is the the most awesome single woman you know?', then see whether the woman most frequently named by them really fits your criteria." That advice from my sister is not one of my criteria, much less the "primary criterion". It's something completely different, a suggestion for how to most probably and most expediently find a criterial match. If this is still unclear, well, I give up. It really just boggles my mind that anyone is so confused by our title policy, yet this confusion is fairly common. I think it results from the emphatic tone that COMMONNAME has taken (like if my sister said "The only way ..." rather than "The number-one way ..."); people mistake it for a rule when it is advice about (or, if you prefer, a procedure for) most likely and most easily finding a title that fits the actual rules, in the section above it. But still, even a few moments' thought demonstrates that COMMONNAME is not and logically cannot be among the criteria at all, since you can just go look at the criteria section and see that it isn't in there. Your eyes are not lying to you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Born2cycle&oldid=783869297"