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.

Friendly FireEdit

Please could you revert your close here? I don't see a consensus, and the idea that "Friendly Fire" doesn't mean the same as "friendly fire" is clearly ridiculous, there's no strong reason for that move to have been moved when many people experienced with page-move policy disagreed. It should be no consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

By count alone it was 8 in support, and only 4 opposed. But more importantly, none of the opposition was based in policy, while all of the support was, as detailed just above. Heck, WP:DIFFCAPS specifically even calls out Friendly Fire as an example. I know you disagree, but your observation that Ordinary Joe doesn't distinguish between caps and no caps doesn't really apply here. Per DIFFCAPS: "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, ...", so what really matters here, as several supporters pointed out, is the intent of a user when they bother to capitalize in the specific context of a Search for Friendly Fire on Wikipedia. Users who don't know WP Search is case sensitive won't bother to capitalize, especially if they're not looking for one of the uses with a proper name, and will get treated exactly as you want all users to be treated - taken to generic Friendly fire. But those who do bother to capitalize as Friendly Fire should be taken to the dab page to be one step closer to finding the article they're almost certainly seeking, rather than to the generic use they're almost certainly not seeking. The title/article configuration supported by a 2:1 ratio of participants complies with the explicitly stated purpose of DIFFCAPS much better than the status quo favored by the minority in opposition. So I hope you understand why I'm not persuaded to revert, especially by anyone who participated in opposition. --В²C 20:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My argument concerns what is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Friendly Fire". DIFFCAPS suggests that we may differentiate based on capitalisation, but it doesn't say that we have to. The term should be assessed for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just like any other. The move proposal was already rejected strongly in 2014, so your close should take that into account as well - normally repeat RMs need strong reasons why circumstances have changed. Please revert your closure. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all references to primary topic of the title case term in the discussion were from supporters. None of the opposers, including you, even mentioned primary topic. Opposition based on primary topic is an argument not presented in the discussion. Opposition didn't even rebut the support argument that there is no primary topic for the title case term, much less develop consensus for the notion that there is. --В²C 20:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't think I had to spell it out in chapter and verse. Usually the onus is on those supporting a move to come up with solid reasons, not those opposing. That's why we have no-consensus reverts to the status quo. The DIFFCAPS policy, which you keep citing, says the following: "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for", which is exactly the same concept as outlined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The supporters of the move did not make such a case, they simply blindly cited DIFFCAPS, without explaining why readers might benefit or why the usual conventions regarding redirects would not apply to this. Your arguments in the other debate suggest you have very strong views on this, so I suggest you frame your arguments here as a vote in the debate rather than a close, because it is a poor close and a misreading of the debate as it stands.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Support statements explaining why readers would benefit from placing the dab page at the title case title:
  • "Friendly fire is never spelled with a capitalized 2nd word and people who search for Friendly Fire are likely to be looking for one of the shows called that."
  • "most readers bothering to capitalize that second F probably want a proper noun"
  • "Some readers might type "Friendly Fire" when looking for "Friendly fire", but unless the majority of readers who type in "Friendly Fire" are looking for that topic, it's not the primary topic for the Title Cased version. "
  • "Crouch, Swale's finding that almost all Friendly Fire wikilinks were mistargeted is strong evidence that Friendly fire is not the primary topic. "
  • "Anyone capitalising "Fire" in a search will surely be looking for something on the dab page."
  • " someone who uses a capital F will probably look for one of the many uses with F, and if not they still have the first link on the disambiguation page to get to friendly fire."
Oppose statements rebutting these explanations:
  • (this line is intentionally blank)
Did I miss something? --В²C 21:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes in most RMs no consensus results in staying where it is but this involved primary topics (where arguably the burden generally lies on those wanting a PT) and the guideline suggests we don't usually redirect incorrect capitalization when uses of that exist. Those supporting indeed showed how readers (and editors) would benefit from having the DAB at the base name so I see consensus for the move and clearly no consensus to ignore the guideline. In addition I'd actually note that 9 editors (including the nom) were in favour of the move but only 4 were against it. We could discount the IP who didn't give a reason and SmokeyJoe who disagreed with the titles of DAB pages in general, in which case we have 8:3. I would agree with SmokeyJoe and Amakuru that you are involved and have clearly voiced opinions on similar ones but with a reasonable consensus and the RM having been open for 6 weeks I don't see a huge problem with the close. Had B2C !voted instead then I bet someone else would have closed it in favour of a move anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I would also add that the RM in 2014 hardly had consensus so I don't think this was "strongly rejected" in addition the last supporter is German and in German all nouns are capitalized but even they agreed with the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't vote in this RM, but FWIW, you might guess from my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51, that I support the move. wbm1058 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion styleEdit

Just a comment, B2C: I see that you haven’t changed. You still like to characterize any opinion that disagrees with yours as “pointless, blatant, and illogical”, “plainly ridiculous”, “ridiculous”, “rationalizing”, “fantastic”. Look around that discussion, please; you will notice that nobody else uses that kind of language to ridicule other people’s positions. You have been scolded in the past, more than once, for intolerance toward other people’s opinions. Let’s try to keep it cordial and collaborative, shall we? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't noticed. I can see how that might convey intolerance for others' opinions, but I assure you that's not how I think or feel! Thanks again for the head's up. I'll do better! --В²C 22:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Better? Thanks yet again. --В²C 23:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Better, thanks - but just now saying the reason for USPLACE is "ostensibly due to the AP convention to include" seemed like a dig. Ostensibly? As in, pretended, but not the real reason?[1][2] Didn't mean to quibble; I do appreciate your recognition of the problem and removing the problem edits. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't question the sincerity of anyone. We humans are, however, masters at making up reasons for whatever our intuition is telling us, and then convincing ourselves those are the real reasons. That's why I used "ostensibly". That's also why presenting our reasons to be scrutinized is so important. I think the fact that we don't follow the AP city, country comma convention for non-US cities does undermine the claim that USPLACE is about following the AP city, state comma convention for US cities. I also think the wide range of conflicting arguments presented to justify USPLACE says a lot about how those arguments are formed ex post facto of the preference, and not very strong. --В²C 01:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)