User:Tautologist/Coatrack Deletions
Definition of Coat and Coatrack
[edit]The definition in WP:COAT is given by example - “The nominal subject (A) is used as an empty coatrack [For (B)], which ends up being mostly obscured by the ‘coats’ (C).” Note that a coatrack, A, is different than a coat, (C). A coatrack is an article or section in an article. A coat is a sentence in the article or section.
Assume Good Faith
[edit]Remember that you should start off assuming good faith on the part of the contributor; that the contributor did not intend to create a coatrack or a coat.
Make sure the information in the coat is elswhere, where it belongs, before deleting it from where it does not belong.
[edit]If A is a coatrack for B, the information in A should be on B before you delete it from A. Make sure the information in the coat, C, or coatrack, A, is in B, where it belongs, before deleting it from where it does not belong. If it is not in B, you should put it on B before you delete it from A. If you do not, you will be removing informatoin from the encyclopedia altogher. (You may also be accused of censorship or bad faith when you are not a censor or acting in bad faith.) If the information does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, there are reasons for getting rid of it altogether, but "coatrack" is not one of the reasons for total deletion of information.
Indicate the article and section where the information you deleted exists.
[edit]When you remove a coatrack section A, with coats C, because it belongs in B, leave a link to the section in B where the coats C can be found. Leave the link in the article if appropriate, or on the talk page of the article if that is more appropriate. This way you will not be deleting information from an encyclopedia, and no one will feel that their informatin is being censored, since they will know where to find it.
Try to keep information by fixing it, not by deleting it
[edit]Since you are assuming the contribution was made in good faith, and did not try to make a coatrack or put in a coat, try to change the wording so that it is not a coatrack or a coat. Try to understand why the editor thought the information relates to the toipic. If information does not have the topic of the article as its subject or object, then it may be part of a chain of reasoning by which it does. Try to keep the information as best as you can.
Leave a message on the talk page of any editor whose work you change substantially
[edit]Examine the history page and see which editors made substantial contributions to the informatino you are changing or deleting. Leave a message about your changes on their discussion page.
Always use an "argument", do not just write "coatrack"
[edit]- * Argument Needed - One should put an argument in the discussion page of the article. Do not simply write "coatrack" in the box for the reason for the edit, and delete someone’s good faith contribution. This is almost guaranteed to cause an unnecessary fight, and your inadequate argument will be the cause. Then write the link to B, where the information in the coats C can be found.
- If you have already made the argument elsewher, specify where you you made it and provide a link if possible. However, always first check if the editor made changes to satisfy your previous argument. If they made changes, then repeat your argument as it relates to the new changes.
Never use "A is 'obviously' a coatrack for B" as your "reason" to delete
[edit]- :* One should never use "It is obvious." as an argument. This is no argument at all, but rather a provocation to the editor whose material is being deleted, who in good faith put the contribution in. If it were "obvious", the contributor would not have made the contribution, since it is assumed the contributor is assumed to be contributing in good faith. Instead, first try as best as you can to keep the section A, or sentence C, of the contributor, by modifing its wording, so as to make it work without deletion of it.
- If it is a coatrack A, or coat C, you should be able to put the section title into the definition sentence in WP:COAT, “The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the ‘coats’.” Substitute the “title” or “header” for “nominal subject”, and cite examples of what your think are coats in for "coats". If you cannot do this, then you are likely wrong in making the deletion on a “coatrack” basis.
A "Coatrack" is never a "Coat"
[edit]Calling something a "coatrack" and a "coat" at the same time is an error; the two are different. If your argument uses both terms for the same thing, you are wrong in making a deletion. An "article" or "section of an article" might or might not be a "coatrack", while a sentence (or collection of sentences) might or might not be a "coat".
WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a policy
[edit]WP:COAT is an essay, not a policy. WP:COAT says at the top, “This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion.” So keep in mind that WP:Coat is an essay, and does not have to be heeded, although in the interest of consensus, it should be heeded. This essay is also not a policy.
Invisible Coats
[edit]Sometimes deletions, although made in good faith in order to avoid any mention of the subject B so as to avoid being a coat, actually obscure A, as mention of B would help to clarify A. The deletion itself thereby becomes a coat, although an invisible one. So a good rule of thumb is that B can be mentioned insofar as the mention of B is in regards to how B affects or is affected by A.