Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.251.123.2 (talk) at 18:55, 18 December 2013 (→‎When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities: now done; we'll see if it sticks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Giving a rationale

I added an introductory paragraph that gives the basic rationale. It was reverted as unnecessary. As any good educator will tell you, if you teach them what to do, they may get it and they may do it; if you educate them on what they are doing, they'll probably get it, and probably do it. Any other thoughts? Dovid (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going once, going twice... no talkie, no objectee! Dovid (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when in doubt, doubt.

A user editing from the IP address beginning with 14.198, attempted to remove the guideline: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.", which has been present since at least August 2012. The only explanation they have given, so far, is their edit summary: "when in doubt, doubt." which is not actually a justification for removing a long-standing guideline. Unless an actual argument is provided, I encourage other users to continue reverting any attempts to remove this guideline. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A long-standing guideline is justification of itself? Where is "be bold"? You still didn't provide a single explanation to refute the edit so far. Not even in talk page for now.
"Not long enough"
Interesting, I thought you have none. Here, verify your action. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Actually, in an editing dispute, an established text takes precedence until the dispute is resolved, so yes, if there was an established text, you guys need to leave that in until you sort this out. Dovid (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in an editing dispute..
Except that it is not a dispute, please WP:AGF. 63.251 still doesn't provide a legitimate reason to show why is the edit disruptive. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14.198 -- You are the one who wants to make a change, you need to justify it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are informed well enough that you didn't explain why is the edit "disruptive" or inappropriate. Each time you reply you ignore my argument, all the while overlook the fact that you *assume* an arbitrary edit disruptive. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, is your argument? I quoted your initial edit comment, above. Unless I missed something, you have not provided any further argument. If you have, please point it out (or better, rephrase it more clearly). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted your initial edit comment, above.
Thank you, but I think I am asking for your argument. Why is the edit inappropriate to begin with? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed, "Each time you reply you ignore my argument". This implies you have an argument. I would like to know what it is. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are contradicting your previous self, you just revert with summary "insufficient explanation", meaning you do admit that "when in doubt, doubt." is an explanation(argument), so how would I think that I don't have an argument at all?
If you have trouble understand it, you can just say it, it is fine, or I can expand it for you:
Explanation of removal
When you are in doubt that if "The" must precede the university name, you doubt that whether "The" should be added or not, for example, you can email the university, post your concern in talk page, or visit this talk page and ask us..etc. There is no need to assume since that it means you put up your POV without drawing a decision(or consensus..), isn't it obvious? You go revert someone's edit, meaning you should know full well what does the edit change and know for certain how is the edit bad.
Yet you chose ignorance and ask me to explain, you should post your doubt on talk page instead of disrupting an edit which you can't understand. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is willing to discuss/disagree, then I will revert it back. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have raised objections to the removal. You need to actually address the objections, and get some other editors to actually support your removal, before you can remotely claim consensus. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that no one counters with my argument, no?
get some other editors
Since when does an edit requires two people? You should read WP:BOLD.
Actually, no, I have asked you to read WP:BOLD for a few times already, I thought you just said consensus? It looks like you give no respect on policies at all.
Two editors have raised objections to the removal.
You deliberately speak nonsense again, I don't think your response is moving toward consensus, verifyit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To further complete my (counter)arguments, according to you,
Revert removal of longstanding guideline with limited explanation or consensus
On Wikipedia, a "longstanding" edit can be some garbage which hasn't been cleaned yet, or it is an edit of good quality which stands for long. In short, a longstanding edit could be garbage, could be gold.
Your argument on "longstanding guideline" has dual use or no meaning. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the edit. The unwillingness of 63.251* to explain his vandalism. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of Revert
Thank you for (finally) explaining (slightly more) about why you want to remove the guideline. I did not claim you had provided no argument, merely a minimal one. To respond to your now stated argument -- providing a default (omission, in this case) is useful, as it encourages consistency, and avoids the need to guess what the typical practice is. In no way does it preclude or prevent someone from attempting to locate actual sources that justify going against it in specific cases. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you thought you've done your part. Thank you for adding a section header to differentiate your annoyance or distressful content. I will kindly discuss the edit along this section.
Now you (finally) explain (after you reverted my edit 4 times) about why you want to revert the edit. But I want to tell you that it is too late, before you charge at my expanded arguments, didn't you say so mighty that "I have not presented an argument. I have no requirement to present an argument"? Instead of opening a talk page and express your doubt, or challenge me with legitimate explanation, this time you said it right out that you insist that one doesn't require an explanation to revert an edit, revert my edit selectively without least understanding on the edit you've reverted. Ignoring all rules and violating WP:REVEXP as I advised you.
I accuse you for Wikihounding, according to WP:HOUND,
Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
If this is not immediately obvious enough, well then, you are WP:STALKING me, and let's see your beautiful contribution log, of course, there is lots of reverts, most(or all?) reverts anonymous editor. As for me, it includes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the corresponding talk pages, all pointless discussion and very long, most are active.
Here you are warned, if you violate WP:REVEXP again and revert my edit for no reason, then see you on WP:DRN, don't say I didn't leave you a caution. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An edit dispute is where two editors differ about whether or not to make a change. This is the case now. Disruptive has nothing to do with it. I don't think your proposal to remove that guideline is disruptive, I just think, so far, that is unnecessary and unhelpful. Per your mis-statement of Dovid's comment, I've reverted. If you wish to revert back, feel free, but I don't think you will meet with a positive response from other users if you do. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An edit dispute is where two editors differ about whether or not to make a change.
Oh, I don't realize that this is the situation you are in, so it seems that you do insist that you can revert anything according to your liking.
Er, what? I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just think, so far, that is unnecessary and unhelpful.
so much that you can't even come up with a single argument except consensus? -- 14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not presented an argument. I have no requirement to present an argument. I am not proposing a change. You are. You have repeatedly been told this. You seem insistent on refusing to acknowledge it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly been told this
Well, I think I've explained myself clearly, but let's see what you mean by "this"
I have not presented an argument.
Now you said it, and it is the first time. At the meantime, you admitted that you have reverted the edit base solely on your basis. See WP:REVEXP.. and evidently it is the second time I ask you to read it, I acknowledge your arguments.
I have no requirement to present an argument. I am not proposing a change. You are.
The problem, you revert the edit multiple times, without explanation.
You are not only proposing to lock the edit, but you are also doing it all by yourself. I have no requirement to present an argument every time I edit, otherwise why WP:be bold is there and why is article not locked? You see, if you propose to lock the article, then you still end up responsible to present an argument on why it has to be locked, because you are proposing a change. Now that you just assume my edit is bad according to your liking.
If you still insist that I ignored your arguments, and just in case you still insist not to accept my arguments above. See WP:REVEXP, here, I quote it for you:
What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.
I hope you understand why your revert is disruptive now, when I request you to explain why my edit is bad, you have to explain it, and you shouldn't have reverted any edit according to your liking, this is Wikipedia, not your garden.
We Wikipedian don't have much time to deal with all sort of unexplainable phenomena, we can't work along if we can't understand the changes. I hope you understand me now. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the attention of additional editors here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.198.220.253, at least break your lines properly; the way you type is very distracting to me. On the other hand... adding, removing, or changing content is editing, and so any disputes involving those are editing disputes. Generally, because this is a guideline that affects many articles, we do need some consensus building before changing it. As a result, 63.251.123.2's reverting is not "revert anything according to [his] liking" but rather protecting established consensus regarding the guideline, it's certainly not (only) his own liking. Certainly the issue can be discussed.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming this. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.198.220.253, at least break your lines properly; the way you type is very distracting to me.
Thanks, it is very constructive.
On the other hand... adding, removing, or changing content is editing, and so any disputes involving those are editing disputes.
And all that except reverting? Is it not an edit?
Generally, because this is a guideline that affects many articles, we do need some consensus building before changing it.
So important that any edit must be reverted for some consensus building? I thought this article is not locked. 63.251 is locking (by reverting) my edit, if you propose to lock my edit, then you have to explain that why my edit is bad, no? 63.251 didn't do that. If you propose to lock the article, then you still end up responsible to explain why such edit is disruptive or bad. Are you trying to say you can't even do that?
Certainly the issue can be discussed.
What issue? One thing is certain, none of your line addresses the edit so far, let's verify it. I don't know how we can come up and agree with this POV. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section break right where 14.198 has (finally) expanded (somewhat) on their reasons for removing the guideline. This should hopefully assist the requested additional editors in finding the actual substantive part of the discussion. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section break above where you has provide an explanation on your reverts, I accuse you for Wikihounding, see WP:HOUND. If this is not immediately obvious in this section, well see for yourself, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History of the removed text

The disputed text was originally inserted back in April 2006 as part of a proposed loosening of the existing rule against the use of articles in titles of Universities, with discussion begun here. Nearly a year later, due to no-one objecting, the proposal was implemented. There was a large amount of discussion before the proposal was made, with actual examples and analysis being provided. It's all available in the talk page, above. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your loaded language, I have to fix the header. I said "loaded language" because according to your response you have already taken the edit as a legitimate edit, you try to "outreason" the edit, knowing that it is not some "disputed text", it is "removed text".
due to no-one objecting, the proposal was implemented. There was a large amount of discussion before the proposal was made, with actual examples and analysis being provided. It's all available in the talk page, above.
According to your (big) talk, I can't see any "actual examples" and "analysis" provided addressing precisely the removed text so far. What I have seen instead, is the final conclusion (aka consensus) which suggests the completely opposite on what you said.
Quoted from Analogue Kid,
I move to accept Melchoir's proposed naming conventions on Universities. My reasoning is, as it stands, if there are examples where it can be reasonably proven that the definite article should be used, we as wikipedia owe it to ourselves to be correct, rather than to apply our own law upon the particular institution. That being said, the burden of proof for whether or not a particular institution should have the definite article needs to be fairly high. I think the case can be made for "The Ohio State University" and "The University of Texas at Austin", but not too many others. --Analogue Kid 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, according to the last talk (Analogue Kid again), it is the history of consensus,
I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the revised standards. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it.--Analogue Kid 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The edit, removal of the text "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.", while made independently, merely follows what consensus stands for. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting, again. The current consensus, as I understand it, is to avoid the use of the definite article for universities unless there is clear evidence to use it. By removing the text: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities." this is changed, as I understand it, to not having a preference one way or another. This is a change to long-standing practice, and if you want to make such a change, you need to convince multiple other editors that it is a good idea. So far, you have convinced exactly no-one. Multiple editors have explained this to you, I've just been the most persistent. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus
The current consensus is obviously that your argument addresses none of the actual edit, while I give you solid argument, quoted the talk page thanks to your lack argument except "long-standing guideline".
The old consensus is history, we are discussing the current version, please WP:FOC.
So far, you have convinced exactly no-one. Multiple editors have explained this to you, I've just been the most persistent.
You sounded so mighty, I thought you actually convinced no one so far? So, how do you explain your revert disrupt? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add, you just told me that "you have convinced exactly no-one", that is to say the problem is on me. However, I would really love to know why YOU absolutely cannot be convinced. Let's see what you said,
...as I understand it, is to avoid the use of the definite article for universities unless there is clear evidence to use it...
There, you said, "as I understand it", have you even read I wonder?
According to the previous reply, as I quoted from Analogue Kid, "we as wikipedia owe it to ourselves to be correct, rather than to apply our own law upon the particular institution."
How does that suppose to say one SHOULD NOT use definite article when in doubt? You deliberately overlooked this line, yet you talked about consensus and all. Can you explain yourself? Your attitude is a sign that you are edit-warring. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the relevant text. As explained above, the earliest rule was to always omit "The". Various people pointed out that in some cases, there was clear evidence that including "The" would be a better fit to "Use common names". Based on this, the guideline was changed to point this out, while leaving the default preference for omitting "The". You are attempting to remove this default preference. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"That isn't the relevant text." Thank you for telling me this is how you interpret the consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume that since nobody has commented that people have no objections to adopting the edit. The unwillingness of 63.251* to explain his vandalism. I'll give it a couple more days and if I don't hear anything I'll go ahead and adopt it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to wait and see if anyone else chimed in. I still object to removing all mention of the general preference for leaving out "The" when the evidence in a specific case is unclear or not yet provided. If 14.198 wants to re-word the current way that preference is stated, I'm glad to discuss that, however, if the intention is to remove the guideline entirely -- that's not OK with me (or, I strongly suspect, many other editors). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I still object to removing all mention of the general preference for leaving out "The" when the evidence in a specific case is unclear or not yet provided."
It is a good point, the general preference is to only document the knowledge as we observe, for more precise, detailed guidelines you can see WP:FLAT, WP:V or WP:OR. That is in contrary to the current version, "when in doubt, do this do that", this is the removed text. So, if you feel something is missing, I understand, then you can add the general preference or you can open a section and ask the editors what to do, but you don't lock the others' edit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Defaults for article names in the absence of specific evidence have nothing to do with WP:FLAT, WP:V or WP:OR. I'm still not clear whether you want to remove any statement of the default, or merely wish to alter its wording. Could you clarify this point? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, you ask for clarification now? Then how do you explain your long-standing revert, your deluded and self-centered behavior, reverting an edit without the slightest understanding.
When you said "when in doubt,..", it means you can't verify your preference. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been assuming you wished to remove the guideline entirely, which as various other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you, is not acceptable. Reading over the talk page again recently, I considered that maybe you had a different intention, so I asked about it. You have still not actually answered. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I have been assuming you wished to remove the guideline entirely,"
1. WP:AGF 2. This is nonsensical offense, verify it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere except in the text you wish to remove does it say that the default should be to leave out "The". That's what I want to see maintained. If you are comfortable with replacing: "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities" with: "Default to not using the definite article for universities.", then we're in agreement. I'm sorry that it's taken us this long and this much text to clarify this point, but so it goes. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you still assume, no?
Also, the following line "A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. This guideline is a weak version of the most-common-name rule."
If it doesn't tell you what to do if there is no usage in running text throughout university materials and if no usage has caught on elsewhere, then tell me what you think is missing. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing is a positive statement of what to do otherwise. Again, I ask -- are you OK with the compromise I suggest? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does, if one can show that there is no usage in running text throughout university materials and if no usage has caught on elsewhere, then definite article is not needed. If you don't show such evidence, then technically the edit is a cheat or say it has rooms to improve.
OK, let me see if I can describe our conflict. It seems to focus on situations where the evidence (for use of "The") is unclear or not yet provided. My view is that the current guideline says to omit the definite article in that case. I'm getting the impression that you think the current guideline doesn't say that. Is this correct? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the evidence (for use of "The") is unclear or not yet provided, then find it. If you can't find it, then it is imperfect. Sure, one can omit that for practical reason, I understand, but it is never correct to have any answer and description to that, the guideline is to find the evidence, you find until you have the evidence that whether the use of "The" fits the condition or not. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already understand that is your view. My question is, do you think that the current wording of the page already agrees with that view, and your edit is merely improving the wording, or do you think the current version is wrong and your edit is an attempt to change it? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your question agrees with the simple matter of the fact that the edit is an improvement of the wording as it should be.
Of course they do -- I'm attempting to refer to your perspective -- I assume you think the edit is an improvement, or you wouldn't be proposing it! 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about your reverts, do you think that the current wording of the page already disagrees with that view or do you think the current version is not wrong? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as I've said below, the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, and by removing the sentence you want to remove, this is changed to having no position in that case. I note that you have not answered the question. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as I've said above, the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, which violates WP:V. I note that you ignored my arguments and basic policies on Wikipedia.
"this is changed to having no position in that case." Nonsense, the position is to find the evidence, yes, I just said "nonsense" because you just said how you understood my view, here I note your ignorance. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"are you OK with the compromise I suggest?"
It goes beyond the scope, as I have pointed out many times, your revert is necessarily a disrupt and I have to restore my edit back, then we discuss a new edit if you prefer, it will be addition anyway, so that's not really a compromise. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that you don't agree to that compromise. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Thank you for confirming that you are trying to change the guideline, specifically, from saying that "The" should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear, to having no position in that case. I reject your claim that the current guideline violates WP:V, as WP:V applies to including statements, not what to do when the evidence is unavailable or unclear. Given that you are trying to change the guideline, you need to actually get support for this change, not merely out-last any opposition. Feel free to post on the Village Pump, or other related talk pages (as I already did) to alert additional users to the topic. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"from saying that The should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear, to having no position in that case." I didn't claim that.
Sigh. But you do agree that you are trying to change the guideline, not merely improve the wording without changing the meaning? I got that impression from when you said: "the current version says to omit "The" when the evidence is unavailable or not yet provided, which violates WP:V.". 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately tell you that the position is to find the evidence, no? You also said you understood my view, I got the impression that you are not trying to reach consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I reject your claim that the current guideline violates WP:V, as WP:V" Then you are trying to out-last any opposition, regarding the current version, my edit(you said "change") merely exhibits consensus, I note that you still didn't respond to my argument on "History of removed text".
Now responded. See above. I had not responded before because the text you quote is not actually relevant to what you claim it is. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, according to you, ""The" should be omitted when the evidence is unavailable or unclear" if you think it means the omission is verifiable, then I think your opposition shows either your misunderstanding or edit-warring.
You keep using the word "wikt:stereotyped" in a very strange way. I have no idea what meaning you are trying to convey with it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I fixed that, I note that you didn't explain your POV (I say nonsense) as I see it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, your constant shift in arguments and inconsistencies as I documented in each reply also shows your lack of acknowledgement, your reverts come before any acknowledgement on my edit and that makes your revert an edit disrupt. You need to actually get support to reject this change, not merely out-last any opposition, or see me on WP:DRN. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what disruption means, as multiple editors have explained to you. Regarding efforts to get additional editor's views on this, I'm all for it. Please go forth and do so. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the matter is that your revert disrupt, refusal to input your explanation, the attitude "trying to out-last any opposition" in effort to waste our efforts (your revert disrupt, constant shifts in argument, and late acknowledgement, I can compile and verify these if you disagree) , is necessarily the behavior of a troll or edit-warrior. The input of other editor (consensus building) is of course viable. However, in your case disrupt resolution is also important. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a real hard time understanding who said what in the section and subsections of #when in doubt, doubt. Please put other peoples comments in quotes and if they are a block quote indent them one more than the lever to which your comment is made, or use {{green}} so "quotes of what other users said are clear" and if you are responding to another's posting then please indent it by one more level until at about eight use the {{od}} template to "outdent" (sic) the next posting.

Now showing that I am totally confused by the posting that the two of you have been making I am going to state a new section and try to sum up the position so that others can understand it. If I misrepresent anyone's actions then please comment below what I post in the next section.

Be aware that this page is under an arbcom discretionary sanctions ruling.

If another deletion takes place without a clear consensus for that deletion here on this talk page, then it will be time to initiate discretionary sanctions. to help clarify what the consensus is I have started a new section with a simple question of whether the sentence should or should not be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a new section. Sorry about the wall-of-text; I've tried to keep it straight, but it's rather a challenge. {{green}} is certainly nice to have. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities

There is a line of text in this naming convention in a section called Universities (see here) that states:

When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.

This text was deleted by 14.198.220.253 on 14 November 2013 (diff)

It was reinstated by 63.251.123.2 there then followed a hot revert war until it was stopped by administrative action by user:Mark Arsten "Protected Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)" on 20 November. Since then a cold war has been taking place on the talk page with a wall of text that I had great difficulty following.

The first thing that needs to be stated is that this is a naming convention and it should not contradict the parent policy which is called Wikipedia:Article titles there is a link to a section in there the link is called WP:DEFINITE. The relevant sentence is

Avoid definite and indefinite articles

Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They are noise words that needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching.

So to simply the issue:

  • 14.198.220.253 wants to delete the sentence "When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities"
  • 63.251.123.2 wants it to be retained.

Please indicate below your support or opposition to the removal of the sentence

When in doubt, do not use the definite article for universities.
  • Oppose deletion I think it follows policy and if anyone thinks that wording in the policy is incorrect (against WP:V etc) then that person should open a discussion on the WP:AT talk page. Until the policy page is changed I fail to see any justification in the deletion,. -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone thinks that wording in the policy is incorrect, then fix it, see WP:Bold. If you want to enforce some obscure specific procedure, then lock the article.
If you think the general preference is missing, read the article, don't just quote one line and say something is missing. Here is the following line after "When in doubt.." I quote for you:

A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. This guideline is a weak version of the most-common-name rule.

(bold added by me) Feel free to discuss why you think the general preference is not immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion I don't oppose the addition of explaining the general preference, only the deletion of "when in doubt..". The reason, Wikipedia doesn't make its original preference when the editor cannot verify its use, see WP:V or WP:OR. That is, when editor is in doubt, the guideline to find if the use of "the" is applicable. Therefore, that line is necessary a violation of our basic principal(WP:V and WP:NOR) and the deletion is trivial. If you think something is missing or unclear, if you wish to add something, add your own, share your idea or open discussion here. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument can be turned on its head and is the usual understanding of WP:V: See the section WP:PROVIT "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". It does not say "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be inserted". However this is beside the point. This naming convention is a guideline that ought not to contradict the policy page that it explains and enhances. I have quoted the section in Article titles policy on which the sentence is based. If you think that your arguments are valid then you need to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Article titles and see if there is a consensus for a change to policy before you attempt to change this guideline. As this prohibition of the definite and indefinite articles has been a part of the Article titles policy since November 2004 I doubt that you will gain a consensus for the change there. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be inserted" <- You can insert that but it has to be verifiable, we sure have some level of tolerance but it never make the edit legitimate, that is to say, when someone challenges the edit, one has to provide/find necessary material (or RS..). If it is unchallenged, if you can't verify, then it is imperfect. It is fine, we never say Wikipedia is perfect.
From the lead section of WP:V (bold added by me),

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

I hope you understand that the wording here, "when in doubt", knowing that you can't verify the edit, you insert the Wikipedian style of name.. Wikipedian's belief, so it does not have to be the name known outside Wikipedia, so it is plain wrong and that makes the guideline misleading. To fix that, you can add whatever you feel like missing even if the "when in doubt" is removed. I don't know why you think that my edit changed the policy.
For WP:AT, I think that's an original advise, the article here as I understand is not locked. With WP:be bold, I don't see how it is necessary to cause trouble for editors in every related page, (do I need to inform V, COMMONNAME, MoS..etc too? I think not).
(Pardon my disagreements.) I don't think your quote is also relevant since the edit does not change the policy, (again, if you feel something is missing, add it.) the reason,
"When in doubt, do this do that" has to be removed, 63.*'s suggestion on "Default is.." is not clear if the guideline asks the editor to assume. The following line of removed line "A definite article should be applied only if.." implies the inapplicability of definite article, if it is still not crystal-clear, I kindly ask you what you think is missing.
Lastly, I propose that, if we agree with modification, then consider the following:

A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. Otherwise, do not use the definite article for universities.

I hope that should reach some consensus. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that compromise, as I think it does make it sufficiently explicit that omitting "The" is to be used until and unless the evidence against it is provided. I wish this had been suggested sooner... 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The statement itself is also ambiguous. When editors are in doubt? In which case we should check sources. When the sources are in doubt? Then which sources take precedence? Or perhaps the definite article should be removed regardless? It's good that we should clarify policy, so perhaps the statement should be re-worded:
  • Use the definite article, only if it is part of the official name of the university, eg.
  • Comment 63.251.123.2 if you agree with the change that 14.198.220.253 has proposed then I suggest you make the change to the text of the naming convention and if it is not reverted after 24 hours I will close this section compromise wording agreed and inserted. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now done. Glad we could get this resolved (although it's OK if folks still have concerns; I'm happy to be reverted if there are objections). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name)&oldid=586678145"