Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages

Solution in search of a problem

I just added "Solution in search of a problem" which appears frequently on policy discussions. The text I added is largely based on User:Gigs great comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete user right. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it, per Stifle's reply on that page and because it is quite valid to state this. ansh666 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We should probably address it. Many of these points have both a "regular" and "inverted" case that are equally fallacious, and many of them are like the slippery slope argument – they can be valid in certain contexts but often applied in invalid, fallacious ways. Many things proposed are in fact solutions in search of problems, yet also the flippant answer "solution in search of a problem" is often irrationally offered in response to a solution to an actual problem that the commenter simply didn't take time to understand. I've probably said enough already to draft the gist of the point that could be added to the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

“Too much work”

Should an argument like “too much work”/“too tedious” be included here? If it already is (or if it’s somewhere else), I can’t find it. Rationale would be similar to WP:NOEFFORT: the project is collaborative, and no one person is required to do all the work necessary to implement a given proposal. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although Wikipedia is a collaborative project with many volunteers, there are no assigned tasks and the volunteers may not work on what you think they should. I've seen editors create or suggest vast projects which tend to get pretty much abandoned when the proposer loses interest and moves on to other things. Often these massive projects, while interesting or even potentially useful, tend not to really fit with the core mission of being an encyclopedia. Sometimes these ideas find new life as a Wikia or another website entirely. Sometimes "too much work" really translates to "cool idea, but you're probably not going to follow through with it" and they're just trying to be diplomatic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Anything at WP:AADD (etc.) that can be generalized as applicable to WP disputes (especially content ones, though not necessarily limited to article content) should be broadened and included here. I frequently encounter people trying to WP:GAME / WP:LAWYER about relying on bogus rationales in section content disputes, and disputes about policy and guideline wording, when one points out that their argument is bogus for AADD reasons that apply, per WP:COMMONSENSE to other types of discussion, and they just retort that AADD is about page deletion discussions so their fallacious reasoning is somehow "valid" outside that nominal context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please help improve this page to the same level of development and clarity as WP:AADD

Please feel free to help me improve this page. I'd been thinking of working on it for a long time, and no one else has, so I've started. I'm picking kind of random entries, and normalizing them to actual policy, as well as to the intent and depth of their counterparts at WP:AADD when they exist, as well as giving them their own shortcuts, and the {{ATA shortcut notice|type=Wikipedia}} template under the shortcuts, and cross-referencing between the AADD and AADP entries.

I think the main reason no one bothers to improve this page or cite it is that it's very difficult to refer to anything in it due to lack of shortcuts (who wants to type out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) instead of WP:NOWORK?), ergo no one sees it, so no one works on it. It's amazing how much solid advice is already in there, and how much WP:LAME WP:DRAMA could be avoided by citing to it frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: One clear problem is that a lot of this was copied over verbatim from [an old version of] AADD, and still retains many references to WP:Notability and examples that pertain to notability and article deletion, when the present essay is about content disputes generally. This material needs to be replaced with more generalized content and policy/guideline citations that deal with addition/removal of material from pages (and other editorial disputes/discussions, without being redundant with any of the related essays listed at WP:Arguments to avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of changes. A few of the things I'm thinking about right now:

• When can comparison to Britannica or other encyclopedias be appropriate? I think sometimes it can be, but I also think it's misused more often than not, e.g. citing encyclopedias or dictionaries for article definitions when we have much stronger sources available.
• Something about ad hominem directed at an article subject, or other arguments relating to like or dislike for the subject (in contrast to like or dislike for the content). I'm thinking of e.g. editors who support or oppose content based on political party lines, except they generally won't say things like "the person being quoted opposes my politics so they don't deserve to be mentioned here" - although that sort of argument could still be used an example. It might be that the broader version is just outside the scope of this page, but I think it would be good to include arguments used in civil POV pushing where possible.
• Is there anything else that could go in the "individual merit" section? If not, maybe it would be better to merge it.

--Sunrise (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Can we add the argument " this page shouldn't be moved to X because X already redirects here"? This is illogical because it defies the reason why we even have an article moving process in the first place as many proposed new titles are already redirects towards the current title..--Prisencolin (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Horse trading

I'm not going to add this since it came up in a pending discussion where I'm involved. But it seems like a possible new thing to add under "#Individual merit".
HORSE TRADING
* Support Support x, provided I get to do y at article Foo. -BribeTaker
* Opposed Oppose x, unless I get to do y at article Foo. -HostageTaker
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that closing has happened, I'll be bold and add this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)