User talk:Born2cycle: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Date_ranges_as_titles: removing unsubstantiated and outright false claims from my talk page |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::::I don’t think the consensus on a major policy page could really be considered “local” and not representative… —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
::::I don’t think the consensus on a major policy page could really be considered “local” and not representative… —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::The !vote counts of a couple of handfuls of people cannot represent community consensus no matter where the discussion is held. But community consensus can be measured by the strength of the arguments even in a discussion involving only a handful of people. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::::The !vote counts of a couple of handfuls of people cannot represent community consensus no matter where the discussion is held. But community consensus can be measured by the strength of the arguments even in a discussion involving only a handful of people. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 23:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::You are continuing in your old dangerous pattern that you said you would avoid if you insist on ignoring the reasoned views of others and arguing that your particular view must be correct. You are not the only one who represents the community opinion in these discussions. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
As I said, if you think my closing was improper, or want to argue that the discussion should be reopened and more broadly advertised, take it to [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
As I said, if you think my closing was improper, or want to argue that the discussion should be reopened and more broadly advertised, take it to [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 18:25, 20 November 2014
Coherent reply policyIf 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. |
|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
RFC
Hello you commented on Solar Roadways. I wanted to let you know about a Request for Comment that is going on right now:
RfC: Should the cost to cover the entire USA be included?
We welcome your comments. Thank you. Wholesomegood (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC
WP:CRYSTAL interpretation
Hi again, I was wondering if you could help me understand your argument here and others like it. You said that WP:CRYSTAL indicates we shouldn’t choose titles based on expectations of future relevancy. By my read, CRYSTAL in no way supports this claim. In a nutshell, it says, “Don’t print speculation,” which doesn’t seem relevant here. So what am I missing? What part of CRYSTAL did you have in mind? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the current wording has moved away from the original meaning and spirit which I always understood to mean we should not speculate about the future since we don't have a "crystal ball" and those don't know what the future will bring. I'm not going to dig through the evolution of edits, but I suspect someone did not like how it prevented them from speculating about the future, and weaseled it to the current wording. --В²C ☎ 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t see much difference in that version. It’s still regarding printing speculation about future events, no more applicable to what we were talking about than the current version is. It has never said we should not speculate about the future; it has always said our content should not speculate about the future (which makes perfect sense, since that would be unencyclopedic). So I’ll ask again, since I’m afraid I still don’t see the relevance: What part of that past version of CRYSTAL impacts the decision of a primary topic? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
That's word-for-word from WP:AT. To me that means we should not title our articles based on speculations about what usage will be like for a given term sometime in the future. --В²C ☎ 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- True, but that again has nothing to do with which of multiple topics should be considered primary for a given term. As far as I know, there is nothing in policy to suggest that we should not use our best judgement, or that we should not consider whether a topic is likely to be ephemeral. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Likely to be ephemeral is fine. In fact, that's what WP:NOTNEWS is about. But speculating beyond issues that are likely to be popular for only a very short time is not going to improve anything. We can always rename in a year or two or five or ten anyway, as actual usage indicates. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue, the foundation of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is why the long-term significance consideration is important. It’s not an encyclopedia of “now.” As best as possible, it should be as relevant next Tuesday or next year as it is today. Choosing titles based on what’s popular right now conflicts with that basic principle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but, again, Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in a number of ways, and one of those ways is, for better or worse, our more relaxed approach to article titles. We're generally less formal and less official than traditional encyclopedias, largely because of WP:COMMONNAME and the desire to serve users who are searching with a given term as efficiently as reasonably possible. That doesn't negate long-term significance, but it does give current usage a higher priority than speculations about future usage. --В²C ☎ 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t disagree with any of this. What I disagree with is claiming or implying that WP:CRYSTAL supports this in any way other than a very loose interpretation of the subsection title. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but, again, Wikipedia differs from traditional encyclopedias in a number of ways, and one of those ways is, for better or worse, our more relaxed approach to article titles. We're generally less formal and less official than traditional encyclopedias, largely because of WP:COMMONNAME and the desire to serve users who are searching with a given term as efficiently as reasonably possible. That doesn't negate long-term significance, but it does give current usage a higher priority than speculations about future usage. --В²C ☎ 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue, the foundation of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is why the long-term significance consideration is important. It’s not an encyclopedia of “now.” As best as possible, it should be as relevant next Tuesday or next year as it is today. Choosing titles based on what’s popular right now conflicts with that basic principle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Likely to be ephemeral is fine. In fact, that's what WP:NOTNEWS is about. But speculating beyond issues that are likely to be popular for only a very short time is not going to improve anything. We can always rename in a year or two or five or ten anyway, as actual usage indicates. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- True, but that again has nothing to do with which of multiple topics should be considered primary for a given term. As far as I know, there is nothing in policy to suggest that we should not use our best judgement, or that we should not consider whether a topic is likely to be ephemeral. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
- I don’t see much difference in that version. It’s still regarding printing speculation about future events, no more applicable to what we were talking about than the current version is. It has never said we should not speculate about the future; it has always said our content should not speculate about the future (which makes perfect sense, since that would be unencyclopedic). So I’ll ask again, since I’m afraid I still don’t see the relevance: What part of that past version of CRYSTAL impacts the decision of a primary topic? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I have closed this discussion per the request at ANRFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gaijin42, this is a very controversial issue. Your closing statement suggests some naivete about WP. Are you an admin? --В²C ☎ 18:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, nor is being an admin a requirement for closing discussions. I assure you though I am quite experienced in wikipedia. If you disagree with my closing WP:AN is thataway for a closure review, but historically one must show very strong evidence that the closing was improper to get any traction. The job of a closer is generally not to determine who is "right" but merely determine what the consensus is. Do you think you can show that the consensus was otherwise? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus of those who happened to be participating was not otherwise, but I think community consensus, as reflected in the substance of the arguments, was otherwise. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don’t think the consensus on a major policy page could really be considered “local” and not representative… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus of those who happened to be participating was not otherwise, but I think community consensus, as reflected in the substance of the arguments, was otherwise. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, nor is being an admin a requirement for closing discussions. I assure you though I am quite experienced in wikipedia. If you disagree with my closing WP:AN is thataway for a closure review, but historically one must show very strong evidence that the closing was improper to get any traction. The job of a closer is generally not to determine who is "right" but merely determine what the consensus is. Do you think you can show that the consensus was otherwise? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, if you think my closing was improper, or want to argue that the discussion should be reopened and more broadly advertised, take it to WP:AN. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)