User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 3

Mass move request

How do you physically propose a mass move request like you did for Allied Gardens etc.? I think it's a good time to propose moving all the ambiguous San Diego neighborhoods to either "Neighborhood, San Diego" or "Neighborhood (San Diego)". If you've got the time and energy, could you do so, or let me know how and I'll try to do it over the next few days. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to get to it soon. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally got around to it.  Done See Talk:Alta_Vista,_San_Diego,_California#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) move

There was and is clearly no consensus to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. The latter is just as common a transliteration of the Hebrew word also transliterated Sephirot. Please do not inappropriately close requested moves. Yworo (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

University Oval, Adelaide and Park 12

Hi! Discussion has moved to Talk:University Oval (Park 12), Adelaide#Relisted move discussion
Your opinion is solicited. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

May I bother you to explain why you oppose "Park 12"? (Here will be fine, unless you prefer to answer on the other talk page.)

By-the-way, I have no problem with "University Oval, Adelaide", and agree that if the Adelaide and South Australian pages followed wikipedia naming conventions, one would use "University Oval (Adelaide)".

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Why Oppose Park 12 per Pdfpdf? Yeti Hunter is of the same opinion, and in fact it was Yeti Hunter who originally proposed "Park 12".Pdfpdf (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Huá talkpage move request

Can you move Talk:Huá (滑) to Talk:Huá to follow your previous move of the article page. The current Talk:Huá has no talk text and only two edits. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Lord Guilford Dudley

I question your decision to move this page based on your own opinion of the merits of the arguments for and against, rather than the establishment of consensus. You seem be making a habit of closing discussions with similar comments. This is not your role, and I do not think you can justify moving a page on the basis of one vote in favour and one against. Deb (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but, anyway, the count was 2 to 1, in favor of the move, including the nominator. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, but by evaluating the arguments on both sides. See WP:JDLI. You seemed to concede the point about usage in reliable sources, and all you offered in rebuttal was your personal opinion of what was "correct".: "there is a modern trend towards spelling it with a "d". That doesn't make it any more correct." If reliable sources spell it more often with a "d", then that is "correct", with respect to how it should be titled in Wikipedia.

Maybe it was a bad decision, but, if so, it's because the opposing side didn't do its job. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty lame excuse. You closed the discussion and made the decision based on what you considered to be the best argument, and it's not the first time you've done this. That's not NPOV and it's not worthy of an admin. Deb (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, though I have a lot of experience with policy, guideline and WP:RM. I'm trying to help with the WP:RM backlog because it's huge. It is the job of the closer to evaluate the arguments on both sides, not just count the votes, which is the only alternative and blatantly in violation of a number of policies and guidelines. WP:NPOV applies to how content is represented in articles, not to how discussions are evaluated.

Remember, what we're ultimately trying to determine is not the consensus of the few people participating in any one discussion, but the consensus of the entire community. The job of those participating is to argue what the community consensus is, not what their personal opinion is. This is accomplished by assuming that the community's views are represented in policy, guidelines and conventions, so arguments that are based in policy, guidelines and conventions must be given much more weight than arguments which are pure personal opinion.

And, again, even if I did just count votes and didn't pay attention to the arguments, it was 2 to 1 in favor. That's 66%, more than enough. If you had a rebuttal to the WP:COMMONNAME argument, you should have shared it. It doesn't do much good staying in your head. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Multi-moves

I see you've been doing some move requests of many articles and splitting them up because of the template's 20 page limit. Thought you should know I've just increased the template's limit to 30 (because I wanted to make a request on 27, and just did:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks! I need to learn how to do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention

How many year have you spent and how many discussions have you started on this exact same issue? Give it a rest.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistence is a virtue. Anyway, I did give it a rest. Almost two years. Sheesh. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Which two years were those?   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not proposed a change to the naming guidelines with regard to U.S. cities in the last two years or so. Neighborhoods, yes. Not cities.

Your snarky attitude is not appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the constant efforts to change the names of Wikipedia articles is disruptive. I didn't say anything about you personally, just the campaign to change place names, a campaign which I don't think has benefited Wikipedia one bit. Excuse me for expressing that opinion.   Will Beback  talk  09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of my contribution to Wikipedia is in the area of bringing article titles into better compliance with general naming criteria as specified in policy, and shoring up guidelines and policy to be as consistent and clear as is reasonably possible. I realize it's not an area of interest for many, but it is for me. We all have our roles, and that's one of mine. You may not think it's important, but I do. So, please, give me a break. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB

I have temporarily reverted your recent edit to WP:NCDAB.[1] Whether it was the "right edit" or not, you are currently involved in a few move discussions regarding the titles for places names, and thus it may give the appearance to others of impropriety or cheating. Unless you get some consensus on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, it is wiser to refrain from being bold on that guideline. Otherwise, you may have to explain yourself directly on those move discussions, and persuade your opponents even more because they may become more skeptical as a result of your actions on those guidelines. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with the content of what I changed? Or is your only issue ad hominem... completely related to the fact that I changed it? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Well done on fighting the good fight for rationality in article names. I won't be participating further in the discussion however. It is pretty clear that the arguments for retaining mandatory disambiguation are weak to non-existent and there is only so many times you can state the general principles of naming here on Wikipedia. The support for mandatory disambiguation isn't based on rational argument, it is based on familiarity and conservatism (and invented statistics!).

There is no case with any substance that shows that US place names (or Australian ones for that matter), are any different than any other topic on the encyclopedia. The arguments for retaining mandatory disambiguation all boil down to "It's always been that way" and "I like it" and when those are shown up for what they are, the last, desperate roll of the dice comes out - "It's divisive"!

Good luck with it all. The Australian experience provides some hope that rational argument can prevail over the red herrings thrown by the proponents of mandatory disambiguation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And thank you also for your efforts. Logic and reason is definitely on our side, but it might take some more time. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_of_Scope_at_Talk:Libertarianism Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

connecticut place moves

Hey i notice this move by you and others, stating in edit summary mention of some Connecticut naming convention. Is there some policy/guideline specifically that you refer to? I am aware of U.S.-wide naming convention for cities, and some previous discussions about policy for neighborhoods. But not any for Connecticut, where I understand it is all a mess, inconsistent.

I don't oppose some program to make the CT ones more consistent. Though i would tend to move towards "Marion, Connecticut" or "Marion, Southington, Connecticut", rather than towards "Marion (Southington)". Let's have a proper discussion and invite others, perhaps at wt:CONN, about what policy is or should be. Please stop, don't make any more such moves for the moment, okay? --Doncram (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all conventions are documented. I don't believe this one is. And the U.S. city guideline is in dispute and under discussion.

I just noticed that most of the CT neighborhoods were at NeighborhoodName (cityname), and just a few weren't, so I moved those to make them all consistent. See Category:Neighborhoods in Connecticut. If you want to have them at some other name, I suggest a WP:RM block move proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that Category of neighborhoods in Connecticut. They are not consistent, but which way to go is not clear from just looking at current state there. The trend has been towards ", Connecticut" naming, in moves i have seen by other editors in Connecticut. I believe the main creator of articles at the "(cityname)" type name has commented that he originally didn't pay attention to any naming convention. Your suggestion of a wp:RM block move could be good. Thanks. I'll reply at my Talk to other parts of your comment there. --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are now naming conventions for individual states?   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently, for neighborhoods. At least CT seems to have it's own convention for naming neighborhoods, and the conventions also seem to differ for various cities. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "convention" for CT neighborhood names; there was just Born2cycle discerning a pattern, while others would discern a different pattern or, with view over time, a trend in fact opposite to pattern Born2cycle discerned. There are a lot of neighborhood names created by one editor who has occasionally disavowed any rhyme or reason in what he did, when questioned. There are occasional moves of some of them. All embroiled in other issues, such as whether to force mergers with articles not about the neighborhoods. Nothing to learn from here for anywhere else. --Doncram (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "convention" is: "A way in which something is usually done, esp. within a particular area or activity". I looked at Category:Neighborhoods_in_Connecticut, noticed that of those that needed disambiguation almost all were disambiguated as neighborhoodname (cityname), and so I made the three that were not so disambiguated consistent with that apparent convention. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between (1) discerning a pattern, then following that pattern when naming a brand new article, and (2) discerning a pattern, then unilaterally (without discussion) renaming a bunch of long-existing articles based on that pattern. While the first of these behaviors is sensible (even though the results may turn out to be wrong), the second is very disruptive (even though the results may turn out to be right).

As for the substance of this change: I, for one, find it totally illogical that, when it's generally agreed to be necessary for almost all U.S. cities that have a legal existence to use the "city, state" convention, people are willing to accept nonspecific names like "The Flats (Woodbridge)" or "Poquetanuck" or "Pleasure Beach" for relatively obscure places that lack any legal existence, have only local meaning, and may not be unique. Furthermore, I note that there are good and sound reasons to use names in the form "Marion, Connecticut" (not "Marion (Southington)") for places that the post office treats as postal cities. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Making you frustrated is an intentional tactic amongst the cult women. They are baiting you, and trying to make you slip so you can get blocked. Trust me on this. Try to ignore them. Do not get frustrated. Do not try to convince them, it is as pointless as trying to convince any cult member of any religion. --90.224.58.240 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! ;-)

I just wanted to say thanks for all your support these last few weeks in these requested moves for very well-known cities. As you can tell, I am not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, so thanks for backing me up on these moves. So far, the only RM of a city I made that was successful was moving Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Ann Arbor. Hopefully, more people will see our points of view when it comes to naming pages for cities. Once again, thank you SO much, and I hope to be hearing from you soon at my talk page. You are amazing, Born2cycle! ;-) --Krauseaj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

LOL, that's the one I didn't know about nor comment on. My position on this issue is notorious, so my participation might bring energy to the predisambiguation proponents who largely seem motivated to make things easier for editors. But thanks anyway, and thank you for your efforts. Keep up the good work. Logic, reason and the good of the encyclopedia and our readers is on our side! --Born2cycle (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, Born2cycle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle: Although the complaint in itself is silly, you *do* need to learn to drop the WP:STICK. If you ask a question, and you don't get an answer, then you aren't going to get an answer. Not without asking the question at least 20 times, at which point *everyone* is sick and tired of you. That lesson took many years for me to learn. State your point and relax. The only ones you need to convince are the moderators, and being annoying won't help. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I'd like to ask you to back off and concentrate on doing something a little more constructive in this new year, such as some actual editing or maybe even creating new articles. To avoid any accusations of favouritism, I am simultaneously making the same request to those who have been your opponents in recent arguments. I don't want to see good/potentially good contributors slipping into this cycle (forgive the pun) of mutual recrimination and the constant arguments are becoming more than a little irritating. Deb (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please!

You need to WP:LETGO. Seriously, every thing you write on the topic at this moment is hurting you and hence helping PMA. Really. Back off. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to hurt PMA or anyone else. I want to help PMA, so if anything I do helps him, great. I simply want everyone, including PMA, to act civilly with each other, and for the community to unite in encouraging PMA to do this, including by imposing sanctions if necessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm trying to help you. I know how you think, and I recognize my earlier behavior in you, and have realized some things of how it comes over in others. I'm trying to help, please listen. Feel free to contact me if you don't want to discuss your behavior in public (which I understand can be somewhat embarrassing). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One last try

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR USERS Pmanderson AND Born2cycle

Okay, this really is my last attempt to avoid one or both of you getting blocked. Please please please will you consider the following course of action?

1. Voluntarily stay away from the following pages for a period of one month:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names - it's time for someone else to make the decision to close this down
• one another's talk pages
• the talk pages of articles that you have previously had disagreements over

2. Stop feeling that you need to have the last word - that isn't any kind of victory

If you could both find the self-discipline to follow this suggestion (which I realise I have no right to make), I feel sure you would not regret it in the long run. Deb (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

PMA says he is willing to give it a go if you are - with the exception of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've carefully considered your request. First, I'm perplexed that you are including me in this. PMA is the one with the long history of ANI complaints, and several active current ones, many of which resulted in admin-sanctioned blocks. Not me. He's the one who has been told to expect a community block if he doesn't stop being so abrasive in his behavior. He's the one that needs to change his behavior to avoid being blocked. What does any of this have to do with me, other than I'm one of those he often disagrees with and so tends to attack?

But even with respect to restricting PMA's behavior, I also find the timing of this suggestion to be odd in light of the recent discussions at ANI being civil and arguably even productive, particularly the one about the difference between commenting on argument and insulting the people who make the arguments. In fact, I'm curious to know PMA's thoughts on what I just wrote there earlier today. The ideal manner to resolve conflicts in Wikipedia is through exactly the kind of discussion we're finally having there, and yet that's what you seem to seek to stifle. I see no point in either one of us agreeing to that.

And why you think this is about a need to have the last word is perplexing. I may or may not having anything to add to that discussion, for example, depending on what PMA says. Well see, as usual. I don't think PMA or I have any particular problem with repeating the same points in discussions with each other, so I don't understand what this part of the proposal even attempts to address.

At any rate, I'm not going to agree to stop documenting his inappropriate behavior on his talk page, unless of course he stops acting inappropriately. If PMA starts flinging insults again at anyone, I will document the incidents there, and if they cross "the line" in severity or number, I'll escalate as appropriate, including on ANI if necessary. Why would you even seek to get me to agree to not to do that, unless your motivation is not to improve PMA's behavior, but to reduce the likelihood of others learning about it?

However, I will abide by the following, request that PMA and you do the same, and will agree to not post to his talk page as long as he complies:

1. Don't engage in behavior that is in violation of community behavioral standards documented at WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:NPA, etc.
2. On article and policy/guideline talk pages, address only the points and arguments being made independent of who makes them. Don't make uncomplimentary (much less insulting or derisive) comments about others.
3. Don't engage in edit wars.
4. Don't engage in move wars.
5. Abide by WP:BRD if your edit or move is reverted.
6. Except in cases of blatant vandalism ("blatant vandalism" excludes anything done by an established editor), don't revert another editor's edit or move until at least attempting to discuss it first.

I suggest agreeing to the above is much more reasonable than the contrived restrictions you've proposed, if nothing else because it is in line with how all editors are supposed to behave anyway. I also believe that no problems would be solved by abiding by what you (Deb) propose that would not also be solved by abiding by this. If PMA agrees to this and abides by it for a month, but there are still issues involving my behavior and PMA for some reason, then I will be shown to be wrong and will give your proposal further consideration. But for now, I see no reason to believe that even PMA, much less I, need any special contrived restrictions - abiding by the existing expected norms of behavior, especially those outlined in my counter-proposal above, should be more than enough.

Please ask PMA if he agrees to the terms of this counter-proposal, and let us know if you agree to support further action being taken against either one of us (or anyone else for that matter) upon non-compliance. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

First, to your comments on WP:NCGN. I checked the edit history myself, and the 6 December version appears to be the last one before edit-warring began in earnest. You and another user have asked me to "let the discussion run its course", and I believe that is exactly what I'm doing by returning to that version.

Second, I made a suggestion that I hoped you would accept. The counter-suggestions above appear to be designed as a way of continuing your battle with PMA whilst making yourself appear squeaky-clean. All the things you are suggesting are extremely subjective and I am not interested in this as a solution. If you wish to carry on the way you're going, you can be sure of further problems. I am forced to wonder whether that is what you really want. Deb (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied to the part about the untenable claim there was an edit war prior to Dec 31 [User_talk:Deb#Editing_a_protected_page_without_consensus here]. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Goal

[Copying the following comment from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson_and_Byzantine_names#Plan_D_restriction:_no_editing_of_active_articles_plus_no_incivility_in_talk since it addresses the post on my user page. I intend to respond to it later. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)]

Thanks for pointing me to User:Born2cycle. I agree with parts of what you say, but disagree that any editor should have stabilizing article titles as their "chosen primary area of interest, focus and expertise". I also strongly disagree with the use of ghits for anything other than rough estimates. If you get a chance, look at the arguments that surrounded the Macedonia naming case. Names of people are another whole can of worms. Essentially, I don't think it is possible to generalise naming guidelines across the broad collection of articles found in Wikipedia, and you need the specialised guidelines. In some ways, this is reminiscent of the conflict between the WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and WP:SNGs (specific notability guidelines). You could easily replace "notability" with "naming" for either of those. The tension between generalised rules and specific ones comes up all the time. Anyway, this is not the place to go into this further, but I do think those who specialise in naming discussions should recognise how petty it can seem to some people, which is why I think people should balance that contribution with other contributions as well (this applies to both you and Pmanderson). And no, it will never be sanctionable to over-specialise, though I have a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SPA that holds that specialising long-term in a topic area causes the same problems as when someone focus only on one article to the exclusion of everything else. If everyone was a generalist, though, that might not be good either. Feel free to follow this up elsewhere, if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For patiently and persistently pointing out the flaws in the various arguments for idiosyncratic disambiguation while remaining unflaggingly courteous and civil in the face of overt hostility. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you manage to retain your even demeanour when continuing to flay away at the same old tired and irrational arguments time and time again. To my disappointment, I lost my rag pretty quickly when attempting to dismantle the equally silly Australian mandatory disambiguation convention.

Please forgive my cynicism in what follows. Despite continuing to demolish their arguments one by one, I doubt you will change many minds. The preference for mandatory disambiguation is an a priori one and the various arguments, be it the "brand" argument, the "first name, last name" argument, the "too many move discussions will result" argument, the "massive disruption" argument or the "70% are not unique" argument are simply post hoc justifications for what is at heart an aesthetic preference. If those arguments don't work they will create others, equally as flawed. The idea is not to convince you or others of the merits of mandatory disambiguation but to throw up fear, uncertainty and doubt about the consequences of change and to drag out the process in the hope that you will either lose patience and go away or lose your cool and do something rash. You can continue to assume good faith (and probably should), sadly I have become more cynical. That cynicism about motives is why I have mainly shied away from participation in this debate despite being sorely tempted.

If it is any consolation, I would point out that despite talk of disaster if Australian place article titles moved away from mandatory disambiguation, there are now quite a few articles at undisambiguated names (see User:Mattinbgn/Undisambiguated Australian places) and the sky has not fallen in. There has not been mass outbreaks of confusion among editors and readers, there has not been a rush on renaming articles or a overwhelming number of RM discussions and the work of fixing links and redirects affected by change has moved along nicely in a manner similar to the ordinary workings of the encyclopedia. WP:AT works well, if it is allowed to. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It's funny that you say, The preference for mandatory disambiguation is an a priori one and the various arguments, be it the "brand" argument, the "first name, last name" argument, the "too many move discussions will result" argument, the "massive disruption" argument or the "70% are not unique" argument are simply post hoc justifications for what is at heart an aesthetic preference. .

I was thinking about that just a few hours ago, and had an idea. I think we (hint, hint) can improve WP:JDLI, especially WP:JDLI#Titles, by giving examples of JDLI arguments disguised as apparently reasonable arguments but which are really rationalizations, explaining why each is actually unreasonable. I've found the application of JDLI in these discussions to be surprisingly effective, and it can only be more effective the more specific it is.

I agree with you to an extent, but it ends on here: they do repeat their arguments over and over, and there is no infinite supply of them. As each is specifically identified as flawed rationalization, we can more efficiently shoot them down.

In the end, we have logic and reason supporting our position, and so I'm confident it will ultimately prevail. Also, the weakening if not all out crumbling of mandatory predisambiguation in other categories also stands as evidence about the direction it's all going. As to U.S. city naming, they key for now is to keep reminding them that the current wording really is in dispute and does not have consensus support, because, well, it's obviously true. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ann Arbor

Hi Born2cycle,

I was just wondering exactly what is going on at the Ann Arbor page. It seems like I've stirred up a lot of controversy with these moves. But, that's no reason for someone to revert it only two weeks later. Keep me informed! ;-) Thanks! -Krauseaj 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So sorry that you stepped into a hornet's next. Did you see this? It has been suggested there that I should have warned you and not encouraged to you file the WP:RM proposal regarding Green Bay, Wisconsin. I disagree. In retrospect, what do you think? While we're at it, please let me know if you have any comments on User:Born2cycle/NamingGoal. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm just letting you know that I commented at the page you told me about. Anyway, I told everyone that you did not encourage me to request a move for Green Bay but instead showed me how, since I was clueless on the matter. I had wanted to move that page for quite some time, and you just simply showed me how--it was an honest suggestion, and I appreciate you for that. Thank you so much for being so kind to me over these last few weeks! I really appreciate it! ;-) As far as your Naming Goal section on your user page, I strongly agree with it, and it is wonderful that you have dedicated your Wikipedia editing experience to fixing page titles! ;-) Thanks again! -Krauseaj 14:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Centralising discussion to minimise drama

B2C, you have repeatedly stated that you disagree with the existence of naming conventions which provide a set of exceptions and/or clarifications to the general principle of WP:COMMONNAME.

However, WP:COMMONNAME is one part of Wikipedia:Article titles. The same document explicitly permits topic-specific naminhg conventions, at Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions.

You clearly disapprove of Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions ... so rather than pursuing the same policy point in multiple forums, please will you:

1. Start an RFC on a proposal to either delete or amend Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions, as you see fit
2. Stop pursuing your generalised objection in other forums until a consensus has been reached on the policy issue.

Centralising the discussion in this way will minimise the drama elsewhere in wikipedia, and provide the community with a chance to consider whether or not to adopt your general point. I am trying to assume in good faith that you want to minimise disruption; if I am right in that assumption, then centralising dicussion is the best way to achieve it.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions as I already explained in the other place you made this same odd claim.

If I may, I suggest that, in general, you might try understanding a position before you decide to oppose it. Your belief that my position implies a disapproval of Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions reveals a lack of understanding of my position, that part of the policy, or both. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG asked me to give an opinion. I agree that a centralized discussion in the form of a community RfC may be the only way of finding consensus on this topic. Right now the discussion is split among many article and project talk pages. However I do not think that the RfC should be framed by Born2cycle or any partisans. It'd be best to get a relatively neutral party to draft the RfC question.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@B2c, my understanding of your position comes from your clear statement on your own userpage. Yes, you say there that you support existing policy ... you go on to say that on your own userpage you explicitly make a blanket rejection of the existence of specific guidelines: "the natural law of Wikipedia is clear: if naming stability is sought, disambiguate only when necessary; otherwise, use the plain natural concise name of the subject. I know of no reason for this natural law of Wikipedia to not apply to any article in Wikipedia".

That's a clear rejection of existing policy, which explicitly permits (in some circumstances) conventions which "recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name" and explicitly sates that when such a convention exists "the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain".

@Will, I agree that having an RFC drafted by a neutral party would be much better. However, until such an RFC is concluded, it would be advisable for B2C to cease pursuing his stated policy objective in so many different venues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have a centralized RFC currently active and I've been asked to not comment there any more or not so much (and I've agree to the latter and have done so). The bottom line is that the partisans in favor of the status quo simply want me to go away. You know, I was in a similar situation a while ago at the debates about how to name plant articles. The difference there was that I was ultimately convinced that there was consensus support for that convention, and, the argument in favor of using scientific names for plants was much more sound than the one in favor of predisambiguation of U.S. city articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an RFC on US placenames, but that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the disruption caused by your tendentious and systematic efforts to decry every naming convention as illegitimate, without either changing the policy which permits them or awaiting the outcome of a centralised discussion on each particular guideline.

The fact that you trumpet your support for only one of the 67 naming conventions merely emphasises your refusal to respect the community decision-making process which led to the other 66, and your repeated unilateral declarations that they are invalid.

I cannot speak for other editors, but it is not my goal to have you go away: I want you to make your case in an orderly way at a centralised discussion, and to then accept the outcome even if you disagree with it. When that's done, those of us who actually build content can get back to work rather than being repeatedly interrupted by your tendentious campaign.

However, if you choose to continue to maximise disruption rather centralising discussion, or you resume your attempts to bludgeon opposition at an RFC, then I very much hope that the community takes whatever steps are needed to end the disruption which you are causing. It's no secret that I disagree with your goal, but even if you are right in what you seek, the means by which you are pursuing are that goal are unlikely to be tolerated for much longer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of editors don't think this is an important issue, ignore it, and continue with their work, completely unaffected by my contributions to discussions about this issue on a few talk pages. Even among those who do think it's important, most seem quite able to say their piece and then also go on unaffected. If you can't do that too, I don't see how it's reasonable to blame me for the difficulty you're having in getting "back to work".

Really, I'm not requiring or even asking you to post on my talk page, to post arguments (reminiscent of this one, by the way) in the RFC discussion that are trounced (nothing personal) by John K, or to engage in back-and-forth banter with me on multiple pages. I do it because I think it's important and I enjoy it. There are countless issues being similarly debated and discussed in which I have no interest, and I ignore them. But I don't blame others for the choices that I make about what to do with my time. Why do you? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your use of terms like "trounced" and "annihilated" to describe one exchange is yet more evidence of your WP:BATTLEFIELD approach. We disagree on that point, to which I will reply in due course, and using the language of the boxing ring to commentate on the progress of a discussion is just as inappropriate as the rest of your pursuit of change through aggressive campaign rtaher than through consenus-building.

Other editors have a right to be concerned about the stability and consistency of article names, without having to face the same tendentious arguments advanced in numerous places when they are clearly incompatible with agreed policies and guidelines. Other editors have to expect that editors will work within existing policies and guidelines, and that occasional exceptions can be sought without ignoring or dismissing the consensus which those policies or guidelines represent. That's how any project avoids wasting its time in endless re-runs of the same discussion: it settles the broad parameters, and gets back to work.

As above, my concern is with not with your view of the substance. I disagree with you on that, but accept your right to hold a a different view. What I don't accept is the fact that you pursue that goal by the means guaranteed to cause the most disruption, and that you simply refuse to accept the validity of any naming policies or guidelines with which you do not personally agree.

I have said what I need to say here, and since it is quite clear that you have no intention of ceasing your campaign of disruption, I will just note that I am merely the latest of a number of editors to warn you that the way you are pursuing your goals is wrong. If you choose to disregard another warning, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Thank you for asking me.

• I think an algorithm is undesirable; no decision in that tree is absolute.
• I do not think your language an improvement on what WP:TITLE already says.

I will say so if you propose it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know of any articles that are not U.S. places for which the algorithm indicates a title different from the ones the articles have, and which you don't believe WP:TITLE indicates they should be changed? I can't. At first I thought Fixed-wing aircraft, but even that falls through to 11 (have a WP:RM discussion). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many to list. Almost every case in which some other principle is in fact given weight against COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Such as? I'm not asking you to list all of them, just a few to convince me it's inaccurate. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on consistency with respect to WikiProject United States Congress

I read your thoughts on stability, and thought I share some of my thoughts. I don't want to rehash our exchanges over at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), but I would like to enter into sort of a colloquy with you on the topic in general. I do this not out of any malice or desire to game the system or spin it one way or another. I just hope to enlighten you to how I've come to my views, as you have done for yours above.

I'm not going to use the Naming conventions as examples. We both already know where the other stands. However, I want to use some of the naming discussions we've had over at the U.S. Congress wikiproject on the subject. We do not have a specific guideline at WP:Naming conventions, but have guidelines for the various types of articles within the project’s scope. These conventions range from articles about politicians to the various institutions of the Congress, such as committees, agencies, and buildings. I think there are some parallels to be found on to topics (geographic and Congress) with respect to my primary view on titles, which is consistency in naming across subject matter. I know you disagree with the consistency argument, but I hope you will hear me out.

Unlike American cities, it's fairly well established that most items related to the U.S. Congress aren't ambiguous, other than the general topics of House, Senate, Speaker, minority leader, etc. When you dig deeper into committees, though, some are clearly unique. The best example I can come up with is the convention we use for the individual ordinal congresses (1st, 2nd, 112th, etc.) While no guideline exists per se, the convention is to use 1st United States Congress or 112th United States Congress, even if 1st Congress or 112th Congress is the most WP:CONCISE name. Hardly anyone uses the full name in normal conversation, and as a former Senate employee the more formal sounds stilted and unnatural to me, much like the comma convention appears to you. Yet, I've come to accept it. There may be one or two where Xth Congress is ambiguous with another country’s nomenclature, but by and large the formal including United States has stuck.

But committees are where the big fun begins, and are a particular area of interest to me. Take a look at a brief discussion we had on this regarding the United States House Select Committee on the Baltic States, along with List of United States House of Representatives committees and List of United States Senate committees for more examples.

As you can see, we use the full, formal name of the committee in all cases. Again, being a former Hill Rat Senate Agriculture Committee is more WP:COMMON. Also, political parties tend to use committee names to send political messages, particularly when there's a shift in power, so moves of articles are common. The best example is the United States House Committee on Education and the Workforce. It was United States House Committee on Education and Labor prior to 1995, the Republicans changed it because of their dislike of the word "Labor" as being equivilent to "Unions." Democrats renamed it in 2007 and the Republicans just flipped it back in 2011. Each time, the committee article has been formally "moved" to the new location. Subcommittees, which change with every new Congress as they must be reconstituted every two years, must be moved. Chairmen like to control their committees and how subcommittees are formed, and these names and jurisdictions change frequently. There are dozens of such subcommittees in the 112th Congress. Redirects are used from the more common names to the formal names.

Obviously, this leads to really complex article titles. Too complex, if you ask me, but it is what it is and I’ve come to understand the standard and adhere to it. Any deviations are on a case-by-case basis, and usually only when strict adherence would result in an overly long article title. We leave “of Representatives” out of House committees, and shorten the full committee when linking subcommittees. Sometimes, the committee never had a formal name, so it is named after the committee (most committees in the early 20th Century were named after their chairmen rather than the topic at hand). See Overman Committee. Strict adherence would have required either United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Bolshevik Propaganda or United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda.

In some cases this may be seen as overly precise and predisambiguation, but these are the official names of the committees. Senate Agriculture Committee may more commen, but it would need to disambiguated. But the Senate Special Committee on Aging would not. Again, I know that you believe, and I’m paraphrasing, to achieve consistency we should “disambiguate only when necessary.” But reliable sources are all over the map in how they reference congressional committees, based on context and audience. So we rely on the official congressional sources and the official, formal name so there will be no confusion over what it should be titled, even if the official name isn’t the common one. Therefore, I wonder if it would meet your “good reason test” per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions?

I know you this is a long description, but I've been thinking about this for some time and wanted to share my thoughts. I know you and other editors have diverging views, but my ultimate concern would be that after geographic names, perhaps someone would take a similar stance at WP:USC. It's a smaller article base for a specialized topic. But we’ve gone through the exercise and have come up with a convention that works for the project. It’s not perfect, but it’s what we have. I would hate to see this and other specialized projects, be affected by a strict adherence to WP:TITLE Because that's how I view Wikipedia: a system of general guidelines and policies that can be tweaked to suit unique and specific needs as needed. Maybe you see it differently, and that's fine, but all I ask, and what other's ask I think, is that you respect those views. Continuous rebuttal, in my view, tends to get us nowhere nearer to consensus than when we started. Sometimes, "agree to disagree" is a viable end result. That's where I am.DCmacnut<> 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really worked with those articles, but I must say that when I made this edit I had a heck of a time finding the article about the committee to which the source (CBS News) referred, House Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee. As is typical for articles that ignore WP:COMMONNAME for reasons I explained at the city, state discussion[2], at that time there was no redirect to the title of our article about that subject, United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. It's not a redlink now because I created the redirect[3] for that one instance of the problem, but that hardly addresses the larger problem to which you refer. This is an excellent example of what happens when "cliques of specialists ... make their own little rules"... they "override a fundamental community principle"[4] (like WP:COMMONNAME). So of course I would favor a change in how these articles are titled... they too should comply as much as is reasonably possible with the general naming criteria at WP:TITLE: if there is a unique and common concise natural name used fairly consistently in reliable sources, then that should be the name of the article. Only use more precision (in this case the longer formal name - in the case of U.S. cities city, state), when no unique and common concise natural name can be ascertained from the sources.

By the way, I agree with this view of yours about Wikipedia: "a system of general guidelines and policies that can be tweaked to suit unique and specific needs as needed." Our disagreement is about whether mandatory adherence to city, state and formal committee names is needed. What I see in both of these cases are not mere tweaks "to suit unique and specific needs as needed", but blatant non-compliance for reasons of personal preference that cause all kinds problems, including redlinks and instability issues.

Let me ask you this. As the creator of United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology almost two years ago, why didn't you determine what this topic is commonly referred to by reliable sources, and at least create redirects to it from that name? Please note, I don't blame you for not doing that work for our readers... but I do suggest that the approach to naming conventions that you favor is responsible, because it discourages editors like yourself from doing that work for our readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

for many of the reasons I alluded to above. There is no single common name, so it's difficult to anticipate every iteration of a redirect. There is at least one Oversight subcommittee for each standing committee. What Common name would you use then, particularly if reliable sources themselves disagree. I admit I was not aware of the deficit you pointed out, but as I pointed out, subcommittee names change every two years. What was a valid redirect two years ago could very well not be valid two years later. This year, there is a subcommittee on the Judiciary committee that has been merged with another, so the previous redirect is no longer relevant and should be deleted. Moreover, the financial services committee is undergoing its own renaming, so some redirected will need to change. Where you see a system designed for personal reasons, I see a system that a community of Wikipedians have developed over the last several years through mutual compromise and consensus. It has served well. Redirects, or the lack thereof, will always be an issue. The one thing you and I agree on is it is beholden on editors to be aware of the changes they make and their cumulative effects. Some editors fail to even correct double redirects when moving articles, something I endeavor to fix when I perform moves.DCmacnut<> 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what you're saying is that there is no unique and common concise natural name can be ascertained from the sources. Again, not much knowledge on my part there, but, if true, then going with the formal name is reasonable. Before concluding it's true, however, I would want to find out how, say, the NY Times and the Washington Post come up with their shorter names. Does each reporter just wing it, or what?

In any case, it is certainly not true there is no unique and common concise natural name for U.S. cities with unambiguous names. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Chihuahua (state)

Thanks for the comments. It is really weird how the proponents of the claim the state being primary not bring up any evidence. Would be nice to have a software based primary topic calculator. Maybe with Green-yellow-red light, and only allow discussion for the middle yellow range. I doubt the other states like Tabasco (sauce, pepper), Baja California (peninsula), Yucatán (peninsula) have any chance to proof that they are primary per the guideline either. Same for the states of New York (city), Mississippi (river). TopoChecker (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RM

Hi; I've made a suggestion for the RM process at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#RM_or_Movenotice.3F, and would be grateful to hear your thoughts there - in particular, I'd like to hear why you discourage skipping the RM process. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

I think your AN/I report was made in good faith, but the less you comment on it, the less likely people will be to agree with BrownHairedGirl's suggestion that you overwhelm discussions. Best to just let this play out as it will, I think. 28bytes (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A less friendly suggestion

Next time you make a edit that I can sum up as "everyone except me is wrong", as you did here, it is very likely to result in a block for tendentious editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that's how you interpreted it. "Everyone except me is wrong" is not even close to what I was trying to convey, and I'm perplexed at how you even got that impression. Trying to be neutral and objective is challenging and difficult, perhaps more for some than others. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Either remove that last sentence, or clarify whether it's talking about me or you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What??? Remove it? Why? Do you disagree with it? It's essentially a harmless truism and not intended to refer to anyone in particular. Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "everyone makes mistakes, some more often than others"? It's a variant on that. That's what I mean. Why sum up something I wrote as "everyone except me is wrong" when it's not about anyone being wrong? Why assume a generic phrase is referring to you when it's not? I mean, why see conflict where there is none?

I'll just say this, I'm not a big fan of communicating by implication. If I have something to say, I say it explicitly. So please do not ever interpret my words to mean something other than what they say based on a plain reading. If I'm talking in general, I use general terms. If I'm addressing specifics, I use specific terms. That how I write, and that's how I read. I've found the alternative (trying to read and write between the lines, so to speak) is a recipe for miscommunication, especially in electronic communications (email is notorious for being prone to that) but I can't control how others read my words. I can ask, though. So, thanks in advance. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On WP:ANI, you explicitly accused several of us of "bias". Unless you can present evidence to back up that claim, don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. If you were being tried for, say, criminal trespass during some kind of political demonstration, and during voir dire one of the potential jurors declared that he thought you had "an agenda which is of no value whatsoever", do you think your lawyer would accept that juror? [5] Do you really believe you're not biased? Do you have any idea how many similar statements you, and the others I referenced, have made about me like that? If that's not evidence of bias, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The only "bias" I have is in favor of common names and in favor of serving the wikipedia readers. I have yet to see you present any evidence that explains how all these freakin' renames are going to help the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In my commentary at the ANI I was referring to the bias you and several others have against me (as the statement of yours I footnoted clearly reveals), in a context of where my behavior was being judged, not your bias about naming.

The main benefit of the renames is long term naming stability and reduction in conflict, which is a benefit to editors, not readers, and is an issue to which much of my user page is devoted. But there are benefits to readers too. Namely, consistency in disambiguating only when necessary means one can rely on knowing whether a given use is uambiguous or not just from the title. If you go to any article about a person, you can know instantly whether that person's name is ambiguous or not, by whether it's title is disambiguated or not. You can do that with cities in most other countries too (and some, like Australia, are moving in that direction). This too is pointed out on my user page. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that wikipedia was invented for its editors rather than its readers??? I think you need to go back to the drawing board. Consider "Ann Arbor, Michigan". You can have that as the one entry, or you can have "Ann Arbor" and "Ann Arbor, Michigan". You can't have just "Ann Arbor", because it will break links. And it's not common usage. What is it going to take to get you to put the readers first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you frustrate me every time you say that. When Ann Arbor, Michigan was moved to Ann Arbor, not a single link had to change, because a redirect was left behind. Similarly, if consensus forms to move Detroit to Detroit, Michigan tomorrow, not a single link will need to be changed, because Detroit will redirect to Detroit, Michigan. There are lots of reasonable arguments to be made for using a "city, state" format, but "breaking links" isn't it. The links will be fine, and no one needs to "fix" the redirects; that's what they're there for. 28bytes (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. If you have just "Ann Arbor, Michigan", you're fine. If you move it to just "Ann Arbor", you have to leave "Ann Arbor, Michigan" behind as a redirect. What's the value in that? Just leave it at common usage, "Ann Arbor, Michigan", and you've got one, unambiguous entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Way, way before the Ann Arbor move, there was a redirect from one to the other. Really! Check the history if you don't believe me. Same story for Detroit vs. Detroit, Michigan, Miami vs. Miami, Florida, Orlando vs. Orlando, Florida, and hundreds if not thousands of other U.S. cities. There's two "entries" for each, and there have been for a very, very long time. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

@BB How does mandatory disambiguation benefit readers when unique names redirect anyway? The only benefit of the entire convention is to editors and even that is arguable. To be honest, this whole campaign against one editor who happens to be articulating a view held by a significant (if minority) segment is unseemly and to an outside observer is starting to take on the appearance of intimidation, no matter what its intent may be. (Just look at the heading of this section, for example). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How does two entries instead of one benefit the readers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? How did moving Ann Arbor, Michigan to Ann Arbor, and reversing the redirect, create two entries? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I'm not saying that wikipedia was invented for its editors rather than its readers. I'm saying we should prioritize the needs of readers over editors, but when there is a benefit from a change for editors, and a small benefit for readers (know if it's unambiguous just by looking at the title), and no downside to either, we should favor the change.

I join 28b and Matt with respect to not understanding the breaking links comment.

And the notion that U.S. cities are not commonly referred to by name only is patently absurd. Here are the results of a search for "Ann Arbor" from books.google.com - not one hit for "Ann Arbor, Michigan" on the first page five pages of results (and even then I didn't find one). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ask this question until I get something resembling a straight answer: WHY IS TWO ENTRIES BETTER FOR THE READERS THAN ONE ENTRY??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"But this one goes to eleven." 28bytes (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll bite. TWO ENTRIES ARE NOT BETTER FOR THE READERS THAN ONE ENTRY. Is that a straight enough answer for you? Now, here's my question... WHY DO YOU ASK? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Because if you leave "Ann Arbor, Michigan" the way it is, that's your one entry. But if you rename it to "Ann Arbor", you also retain a redirect from "Ann Arbor, Michigan". Now you have TWO entries. What's the point in that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aargh! Let's try this one more time. If the page lives at Ann Arbor, a redirect from Ann Arbor, Michigan will point there. If the page lives at Ann Arbor, Michigan, a redirect from Ann Arbor will point there. 28bytes (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Are you just pulling our legs or do you really not get it? Regardless of whether the article is at [Ann Arbor] or at [Ann Arbor, Michigan], the other has to be a redirect.

  If you have the article at [Ann Arbor, Michigan], you need to have a redirect to it at [Ann Arbor], and vice versa. Which way we go on this point has no bearing at all on numbers of entries - it's always two. What's frustrating about this is that so much of those opposed to change seem to be relying on, well, a poor understanding of what we're talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you leave "Ann Arbor, Michigan" the way it is, that's TWO entries, not one... The article at Ann Arbor, Michigan is one entry, and the redirect at Ann Arbor (to Ann Arbor, Michigan) is the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion summary

Resolved:

1. There was no intent to characterize anyone as being "wrong" in this edit[6].
2. There was no intent to refer to anyone in particular above when I wrote, "Trying to be neutral and objective is challenging and difficult, perhaps more for some than others.".
3. Baseball Bugs reveals a personal bias against me in many of his comments, including this one[7], where he says about me, "[is] on an agenda he acknowledges will go on for years, and which is of no value whatsoever".
4. We should prioritize the needs of readers over editors.
5. While the primary advantages of disambiguate only when necessary are for editors and ultimately stem from naming articles consistently with all other articles in WP, an advantage to readers of disambiguate only when necessary is that titles then reliably indicate whether the name of the topic is unambiguous.
6. Whether a U.S. city article is at [City] or [City, State], there will be two entries (one is the article and the other is the redirect to it).

Anyone disagree with any of the above? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

4 -- false dichotomy. Ann Arbor serves both the reader and editor. The reader only sees what she has to, and the editor knows exactly what to type without looking it up first.

5 -- there's always ambiguity. If I created Bothell, do I mean the city, or the man who founded it?

6 -- in my experience, one redirect is rather low.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All good points, but all based on a different semantic take then what we were talking about.

4 - This is just a general statement about what our priorities should be, not about whether any particular title serves editors or readers better relative to another title.

5 - "Unambiguous" with respect to WP titles is often used, and was in this case, in a rather more specific meaning. It means "no other uses of that name with articles in Wikipedia OR is the primary topic".

6 - The point was that all cities will have (at least) two entries regardless of which convention is used. Bugs was arguing that if the article is at Ann Arbor, Michigan that will be the only entry (implying no redirects, not even from Ann Arbor). --Born2cycle (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say that it was gracious of you to be the one who removed the "disputed" tag from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) after the discussion was closed. That was classy. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Melanie. I was happy to find it still there so I could be the one to remove it. Seemed appropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:MOS

It seems like you missed the section because someone made a new header above it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

México (state)

Closure at Talk:State of Mexico#Requested move 2011 seems to have not observed "I propose Mexico (Mexican state)" by the IP and "Would support México (Mexican state)" by the nominator. The two only differ, but likely the IP was not aware of the fact that Michoacán, Nuevo León, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Yucatán all use the accent. Furthermore the word state is only used for disambiguation and that is done per MOS with parenthesis and not with putting a noun in front, compare Chihuahua (state), Hidalgo (state), or for the U.S. Washington (state). If further ambiguity exists then a form like Amazonas (Brazilian state), or Georgia (U.S. state) is used. And not randomly State of Georgia. Thus two users agreed (majority) and what they agreed for seems reasonable and is MOS conform, even more than the current title. Could you review, and move to México (Mexican state)? Chihuahua State (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Due to the lack of participation, I suggest a new proposal would be best. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I just started one. Since the immediately-preceding discussion rejected a move to (state), I'm only trying to get the accent in at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Continual skirmishes about article titles spread across many talk pages do not help anyone. They cause inconsistency, stress, confusion, and eventually burn out. What was the rush on that article move? None, of course. The more important issue is the potentially massive copyvio. You're beginning to look like a fanatic. Fanatics don't tend to have profitable Wikipedia careers - Wolfkeeper burnt out over his fanaticism over NOTDIC, A Nobody over inclusionism, Gavin.collins over notability, lists, and his own copyvios. Getting obsessed with one aspect to the detriment of article writing distorts your view of Wikipedia, and you'll keep ending up at AN/I and other drama boards more and more often. So take a break from article titles (there are more important things) and if you must discuss them then focus on centralised discussion, not a scattered war of attrition. Fences&Windows 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but these are indisputable facts:

• My main goal at Wikipedia is to improve the situation with regard to titles in order to ultimately reduce skirmishes about article titles by reducing the number of issues about which there can be naming disagreement, most notably by eliminating as much as reasonably possible inconsistencies between the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE and specific naming conventions. Such inconsistencies are invariably and understandably the source of inevitable disagreement. See my user page and my FAQ. What appears to be hard to grasp for some is that the process of working for reducing skirmishes in naming through greater consistency in naming ironically requires being involved in many skirmishes.
• There was no rush on that article move, of course. The issue was about allowing editors to reach consensus through discussion when there was obvious disagreement. Since establishing consensus through discussion is a core value of Wikipedia, it must be unacceptable to prematurely close discussions like that. It's one thing if a discussion has been going on for months and not getting anywhere, but if it's less than two days old and the standard minimum is a week, it should never be acceptable to close it, period.
• Of course the copyvio issue is more important, but I raised the issue about the unacceptable premature close before anyone was aware of the copyvio issue, and while it's less important, unacceptable premature closing of discussions like that is not unimportant. If people are allowed to close discussions prematurely without consequences, this will encourage more of that behavior. Is that what you want? Consensus at the ANI about the close in question being premature was clear, and yet you declared the issue "resolved" before any action was taken. Why?

I hope you're having a pleasant day. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So ... you want lots of skirmishes, to avoid skirmishes. Brilliant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the goal is to get to the point where there are few skirmishes - but we'll never get there as long as the rules are inherently conflicting. If Rule 1 says A and Rule 2 says B, that's a conflict. And adding a clause to Rule 1 saying that sometimes Rule 2 should be followed does not resolve that conflict. What resolves that conflict is saying that Rule 2 should be followed only when following Rule 1 does not indicate a clear answer (A).

But yes, if getting there involves skirmishes, so it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Having general principle with specific exceptions is a practice common to most areas of law, and it it exists in many other aspects of wikipedia policy and guidelines. The fact you want to abolish exceptions does not justify your refusal to accept that those guidelines exist unless and until they are changed.

In the meantime, you are trying to avoid centralised discussions on the naming conventions by a deliberate drama-maximising strategy of having the same guideline-related discussion on multiple articles. If you genuinely wanted to avoid skirmishes, you'd have one centralised discussion on a guideline, and accept the outcome; but instead you are trying to create as many skirmishes as possible in the hope that you can wear down those who disagree with you. Wikipedia is not a battleground; stop trying to create battles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Community wide consensus is not determined by any one discussion, not even a discussion about a guideline involving dozens of editors. The community is much larger than any one discussion. The only way to determine what consensus really is - which is what guidelines are suppose to reflect - is by having multiple discussions involving a variety of selections from the community. Trying to stifle such discussions, as you do, is contrary to determining true consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. Spreading discussion of a relatively narrow issue like this across a broad variety of topic pages just ensures that any people with logical arguments to make will have to repeat them until they get burnt out, and haze the discussion with a great deal of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. "Community wide consensus" is not the same as a community wide referendum, and your course of action looks more like a plan to fatigue people who have considered the issue soberly and thoughtfully than anything actually useful. Choess (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I started one move proposal in the area of peers. How does that amount to "spreading discussion" "across a broad variety of topic pages"? How is it "a plan to fatigue people"? Please support your wild accusations with facts. If you have an issue with my behavior, please specify exactly what it is, with diffs. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP:

• All categorization is required to be both notable and relevant.
• Certain quibblers have noted that ethnicity and gender are not specifically listed in WP:BLP.
• WP:BLP is a "policy", while Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people (WP:COP), Wikipedia:Category names, WP:EGRS, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially WP:OC#EGRS) are "guidelines".
• Certain quibblers argue that policy trumps guidelines for these special cases.
• Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender might be allowed for living people, but removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal.
• This is difficult to enforce or implement (and was certainly never the intent of the policy).

Last year, you commented on a proposal to add ethnicity. By strict count, there was enough support, and no reason that it was abandoned; perhaps being overtaken by events.... I'm re-proposing the same, plus gender, to match all other guidelines.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

??? This is clearly not consensus, not in line with naming stability. How can you close it that way? Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your close statement and your speedy. Let me know if you believe you had a good reason to do that, as opposed to just tweaking us, which is what it looks like. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I explained my reasons in the closing. You're not an admin. If you can get an admin to review and reverse my decision, please. Otherwise, please do not revert. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

B2C, there's this. I think if someone calls you on it, you ought to consider letting them stop you. While I obviously disagree with your close in this case, I generally think you do a great job closing these and your knowledge of our relevant guidelines is unparalleled, so please don't think I'm encouraging you to stop closing contentious rms! (The huge backlog needs your help, for sure!) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "should" restriction and I've had moves challenged on those grounds; some that were sustained and others that were reversed... by an admin. I think I speak for most of the community when I say that this particular move is a much bigger waste of time than the average move, but I took it seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't actually noticed your statement there. Now that I've read it, I must say I'm amazed that you find no good reasons against the move. For one thing, all the other articles and categories and text related to the Mexican–American War use the en dash, except for the one article that has caused an ongoing firestorm by its improper move away from the long-stable consistent form supported by the MOS; closing it as a move away from stability is a bad idea while such things are being debated. For another thing, the MOS specifies the best practices that were already followed by the title, and the guy who proposed the move is on a campaign to destroy this aspect of the MOS; if he wins that campaign, OK, but you shouldn't be helping by abandoning stable defenses to him (to try a strained military analogy). Thirdly, the theories proposed in support of the move, about the hyphenated adjective, were shown to be bunk, and no support for the theory was found in sources, while we did find sources that show that when the style is to use en dash in such two-word constructions, they do not make an exception for Mexican–American War, and use the en dash there, too. Fourthly, if you think it's a waste of time, the correct decision is no move, or stay out of it. Let someone who understands what's at stake look at it.

I request that you hold off executing this until someone who knows how to get an uninvolveed admin to look at it has time to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oopa, too late, it was already done (by an uninvolved admin), but, then reverted by a heavily involved non-admin. What a mess. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What a mess, yes. And you have compounded it. You have involved yourself in a singularly high-handed and unhelpful way, Born2Cycle. I reverted your move, as a non-admin who has the sort of deep grasp of the issues that eludes you. I have consistently requested, for this article and Mexican-American War, that the whole nest of issues be addressed centrally and rationally. If you work against that by such interventions as you have made here, you perpetuate the chaos that comes from local skirmishing on global issues. Please don't do that. Noetica^Tea? 03:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I just saw this pop up at the Admin's Noticeboard, and Born2cycle, despite your intention to 'solve' this, you've really just exacerbated a problematic situation. This is *really* a situation that requires a different kind of solution, and simply wading in like this is just likely to cause more frustration to those who have been slowly working toward resolution on this issue. I would politely ask you to self-revert in this situation, and look for ways to bridge these two sides rather than force a decision. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the use of dashes under two circumstances: as punctuation, as before Avanu's signature just above (the double hyphen is a conventional approximation); and where and in proportion that they are used in reliable sources. This last does occur, but much more rarely than our enthusiasts make out.

If there were a prospect of consensus on all hyphens, I would join it, and leave the few rational dashes up to IAR and MOS:FOLLOW; but I doubt there is, even if the discussion is limited to reasonable editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense, though your ideal is really just as problematic as any other position that supports dashes in some cases that cannot be reliably distinguished by bot.

So if I made a hyphen-only proposal (with very limited exceptions) which could be bot-enforced (including handling the very limited exceptions), I presume you would support it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If I did so, and it may be the only solution short of topic-banning four editors, it would be weakly and on condition that the bot would not revert-war. (This applies to all solutions by bot; bots cannot reliably edit anything that involves meaning.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that would be the point of my proposal. We might exclude the bot from editing a few certain articles, like one on dashes, but for everything else it would brute-force convert all dashes to hyphens, period. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think brute-force enforcement of bad typography is better than letting editors exercise judgement guided by the MOS, then make your proposal. I would hope to see it go down in the dustbin of bad ideas, of course. Actually, you wouldn't need a bot at all; just get the wiki software to map all dashes to hyphens except on article marked by an admin for exception; go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the choice is not between good and bad, but between good-but-consistent (all hyphens) vs. better-in-some-cases-but-inconsistent (sometimes hyphens, sometimes dashes) --Born2cycle (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm saying all hyphens is not good, but certainly could be consistent. Inconsistency is the expected condition of wikipedia forever; it's what motivates us to work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some inconsistency is inevitable, to be sure. By why set us up for definite inconsistency when we can easily have consistency at what I believe is a very small price. That price is the difference between, for example, Mexican-American and Mexican–American. Of course what is "good" and "not good" is subjective, but is Mexican-American really all that much worse than Mexican–American? Aren't we really talking about a slight matter of preference, than something significant? Is the cost of guaranteed inconsistency really worth it when we can guarantee consistency with the less preferable usage?

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you (and few others) even feel so strongly about this. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason, for me at least, is just what you have on your user page: naming stability. Anderson is attempting to subvert the MOS through the back door, which causes all manner of problems, instability, and inconsistency. There are good arguments and good precedent for not using en dashes, or for not using them for some of the things specified on the MOS, and if the community were to come to consensus on that I would have no objection. What I object to is Anderson's campaign to remake WP according to his preferences by dishonest means if he can't accomplish it through honest means. Let's have a stable implementation of the MOS, and if the community decides it doesn't like the results, then let's be responsible enough to enact the changes by changing the MOS. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand. The problem with that objection is that change normally occurs bottom-up in WP, since the guidelines and polices tend to reflect behavior more than they dictate behavior. There are several reasons for this, but probably the most important is that we rarely have a true quorum deciding anything. Even on policy talk pages most decisions involve a handful or two of the thousands of editors. So it makes sense to change things one article, or a few articles, at a time, and, then, if a trend is established, propose a change to the corresponding policy, guideline, MOS or whatever to reflect the new trend.

So being out of line with policy/guideline/MOS is not in and of itself a good reason to object when someone proposing the change has given good reason to invoke WP:IAR. This is not subverting the rules, or dishonest or irresponsible. It's the standard way to change things in WP. And, yes, it means inconsistencies during the transition stages, which can least months or even years.

That said, you do need to persuade a consensus of those participating at each step. Any controversial change - and going against policy/guideline/MOS is almost always by definition controversial - requires a discussion and establishment of consensus. I don't know the history, but if these changes contrary to MOS were being made unilaterally, then I agree that's a problem, though even then at least at first one can probably defend his actions per WP:BOLD. But once some objection is established, yeah, discussion and consensus required... on the individual change, not necessarily on the rule change. Typically that doesn't happen until consensus is established for some number of individual changes, establishing a trend. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that changing an article one's working on is dishonest. I think that Anderson is dishonest. His arguments rely largely on bullshit, by which I mean he appears to have utter disdain for factual argument, though he demands it of others.

The MOS trend is well established in this case: Nearly all wars named after the two sides are en-dashed. Anderson is on a campaign to remove en dashes, which he repeatedly claims "are not English" (and then repeatedly denies that he's said that when shown that they are English, as if we can't read page histories).

Many of the uses of the en dash I've found on WP were new to me, as they appear to be to many of us. However, since we've had consensus on punctuating wars and many other disjunctive relationships with en dashes, I do think that we should debate this at that level rather than edit warring article by article. I also think that trying to maintain professional standards of punctuation is in general a good thing to do, even if it's not always convenient for the editor. For example, much better to use "→" than "-->" in derivations.

I agree that establishing disjunctive en dashes in new areas can be problematic, though I would like to see consistency across the encyclopedia. For example, the numerous language-family articles I work on all use hyphens, apart from a few such as Trans–New Guinea which link open compounds and are dashed. Nonetheless, recent sources I've used (such as the Cambridge survey on Andean languages) do dash language families, so I hope that we will be able to extend the MOS convention to them. But unlike Anderson I'm not going to edit war to get my way in areas where we don't have an established convention if being BOLD doesn't work and I can't convince people.

There are also more substantial issues at play here: Do we really want different conventions for titles than for text? If so, why? That makes no sense to me. What do we do when the format of the title differs from the format of the same phrase in the text, and people naturally demand that they agree? Do we then use different formatting for phrases which appear in the title than for phrases which don't? Or do we junk the MOS because it's overridden by TITLE?

Do we really want to have a different style for each article, depending on the predominant style of the literature for that subject, as some have argued? (For example, should language families of the Andes have dashes, but families of the Amazon hyphens? Really? What does a dash or hyphen mean if the next article you read uses a different convention?) (Apart from legal names where the punctuation is part of the name, of course.) What happens when the lit is inconsistent, as it often is? Do we really want more conflicts like US vs UK spelling conventions, or AD vs CE dates? So it's a much larger issue than just punctuation of this one article. — kwami (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about PMA, but I agree that there are broader issues. But it creates a chicken-egg problem to require resolving broader issues only at the general level. You need to have test cases, if you will, to see if there is a trend establishing broad consensus or not.

That said, I'm not at all impressed by the distinction between uses of hyphen and dashes. I suggest the vast majority of readers and editors will not notice or be aware of the difference, and, because of that, trying to consistently and reliably use one but not the other and vice versa in various types of situations is necessarily doomed to failure in Wikipedia due to the free-wheeling nature here: unlike grammar, spelling and many other types of punctuation, dash/hyphen usage is not something that can be effectively policed and enforced.

I do like the idea in theory, and would support it on a project that has tight editorial control, but that is not Wikipedia. To the contrary. I suggest we abandon the dashes almost entirely, and stick with using the hyphen exclusively - reliably and consistently. That we can accomplish because exclusive/consistent hyphen use can be facilitated by automated processes. Whatever the downside, since it's not unprecedented to go hyphen-only in the publishing world, it has to be insignificant and dwarfed by the advantages in terms of simplicity, effectiveness, consistency, reliability, professionalism and credibility. Just say no to dashes! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it raises issues that hyphenation itself doesn't raise. I've had the same kind of whacko arguments over hyphenating the names of cancers, where there's an editor with a good medical background who's threatened to leave WP if I add hyphens to his articles, and that's just in egregious cases like small cell carcinoma, not more arguable ones like basal cell carcinoma. If someone like Anderson comes along in an all-out war against hyphens, should we simply stop hyphenating on Wikipedia? And a lot of editors get basic hyphenation wrong. We can clean up dashes just as we do hyphens.

As for the oft-repeated question of what different an en dash makes in Mexican–American war, compare Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Arab–Israeli conflict. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen vs. no hyphen debate is a separate issue.

I understand the difference in meaning the hyphen vs. the en-dash is supposed to convey, I simply challenge the notion that that meaning will actually be conveyed to a significantly large portion of readers or even editors. I just don't buy it, considering the relatively few who understand and appreciate the difference, not to mention the near-indistinguishableness of the hyphen and n-dash, especially when using certain fonts.

Therefore, the price of using all hyphens is, at most, that to the tiny minority of readers to whom the meaning might have been conveyed, it won't be conveyed. In reality, the price of going all hyphens is even less than that, essentially zero, because for the meaning to be conveyed to even the knowledgeable by a given publication, that publication needs to consistently and reliably use dashes and en-dashes appropriately, and I don't see that ever happening in freewheeling Wikipedia; not even close. So even to those few who understand, recognize and appreciate the difference, they're not going to be able to rely on WP usage to convey that meaning accurately and reliably. They will have to rely on other means to glean the meaning, like everyone, like reading the respective articles. So, why bother? What is the benefit? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments can also be used against hyphens or commas. For me, the reason to bother is simple professionalism. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean when to use a comma vs. when to use a hyphen? Well, that's very different. It's a much more subjective situation - so subjective that people are unlikely to argue about it. That is, most are fine with either one in most cases - there is no right or wrong, so either is professional and credible in most cases. So no, my arguments don't apply to that. The point you can't seem to grasp is that the if the reason to bother is simple professionalism, we're destined to fail because we'll never get it right - it's impossible to effectively police and implement correct usage of the various dashes and hyphens because of the freewheeling nature of Wikipedia. That argument does not apply to comma vs. hyphen because there is no clear-cut correct usage that we can get wrong. And the few obvious cases are just that - obvious, like this one - so those are not impossible to police, maintain and manage. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As Kwamikagami astutely pointed out, a dash conveys a different meaning. Is the Mexican-American War something where the Mexican-descended Americans are causing problems? Mexican—American War (with a dash) clearly conveys that it is between Mexican people and American people (aka US). Agreed, it is relatively minor, but having standards in place is a useful thing. Honestly whether we use a dash or a hyphen in the end, I'm not really that torn either way, but I would like consistency. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He understands the difference, he just doesn't think it's workable.

Born, in the field of military actions, we are consistent enough for dashes vs. hyphens to be a reliable indicator of meaning. The Battle of Villers-Bocage, for example, names one location, whereas the Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive names two. Disjunctive names aren't so ubiquitous as to be unworkable IMO. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say I'm impressed with you Kwami. You're obviously paying attention and really trying to get to the core issues here, as I am too.

Okay, so Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive has the en-dash. You think we're "consistent enough"? Remember this is your example, and yet we have over a dozen links to the usage with the hyphen[8]. For example, if you go to Stepan Repin, you will find a link to Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive, using a hyphen, no en-dash. If you click on it, it gets you to the correct article, Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, but through the redirect at the hyphenated version, thus resulting in the message: "(Redirected from Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive)". That message is in a smaller point size, so the distinction between hyphen and en-dash is very likely to be missed, and it looks, well, stupid. Certainly unprofessional.

Sure you can fix this today, now that I've brought it to your attention, but who is going to continue maintaining that and fixing all future broken (inconsistent) references to it? Not to mention doing the same for every other article that uses an en-dash? Don't we have enough to do to add this to our plate? If that doesn't convince you it's unmanageable and not possible to do it consistently and reliably enough to be professional and credible, I don't know what will.

I say again, the alternative -- to use all hyphens exclusively and consistently -- can be easily maintained automatically with virtually no time and effort. A free professional and credible presentation. Sooner or later you'll realize... it's the only way to go. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that one's in pretty good shape, with only 14 of about 200 links to it using the hyphen redirect. That suggests that things are working pretty well. The little redirect message actually helps call attention to the fact that the link didn't quite match, and many editors when they notice and take the time to investigate learn a bit about the distinction, and sometimes fix it. It's a slow process, for sure, especially as many such links are rarely even clicked, but the vector is in the right direction, as with most other parts of wikipedia. And speaking of bots, this would be an easy one; look for the use of redirects that differ from the target title only in a hyphen–dash difference, and fix them up. Maybe someone who knows how to do bots will give it a whack. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

At best, maybe links like that can get fixed automatically. That still leaves all of the text that doesn't link to articles. With WP, we're guaranteed to always have a hodgepodge.

A constantly growing/changing entity like WP is very different from a publication with a "content freeze" deadline which can be thoroughly and reliably verified for propor hyphen/dash usage prior to publication. That's never going to happen here. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since I've run into this issue many times before, I decide to incorporate this response into my FAQ: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

B, your opposition to the compromise seems to run counter to your essay User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. Why not support putting this argument aside so that such activity can go on as you suggest? Insistence on stamping out typography will only prolong the argument; I believe your original reason for getting involved was the halt an argument, but now your opposition of compromise may lead to the opposite effect, no? Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, the activity that I suggest should be able to go on is discussion at the individual article level about what to do with neither side arguing its position simply based on following a guideline when the other side disagrees with that guideline.

In particular, people should be able to argue that a hyphen should be used in some article even when the MOS says otherwise; or that dashes should be used even when the MOS says otherwise. If a trend develops or changes, then the MOS can updated to reflect that. But the argument that one shouldn't use a dash or hyphen because the MOS says otherwise should carry no weight, presuming the argument being rebutted is not just a WP:JDLI variant, but is based somehow on improving WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Corvette - summary argument sections

Talk:Corvette#Requested_move. I do not think it is appropriate for supporters of the proposals for a move to create "summary argument" sections. Many of the arguments against the "condensed version" also apply to this.

I do not know what the result of the discussion will be; though I note that the supporters of the proposals are extremely determined to get their way. There is a danger that your summary argument section could be accused of being a straw man.

Please could you delete your "summary argument sections".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's intended to be a collaborative effort that is in progress. I don't understand your objection. If something is missing from the position you support, add it. That's the point. The result should be a condensed version of each argument, more condensed than the previous attempt, but also not missing anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But there is already a version of each argument available for perusal, surely it is up to the eventual closer to condense this or not, as they choose.  pablo 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the job of the closer, to be sure, but as the discussion is still ongoing anyone new coming here is unlikely to read every individual argument and would probably find useful a summary of each position. I know I would.

Instead of spending time and energy complaining about how much the summary idea sucks, why not improve it so it does not suck? I just added an argument to the oppose summary position that came from the 2009 discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Spend time and energy on refining a subprocess that you initiated and I do not think adds any value to the move discussion (in fact is clearly both controversial and open to abuse)? Yes, why don't I do that. pablo 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Holiday

Please take a holiday. You need to get some perspective. Maybe if you interacted with people in the real world for a bit, you might come to terms with the fact that sometimes people disagree with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with me. I have an issue with people taking positions that are not supported by WP policy and guidelines. What's the point of having rules if they can be ignored without good reason? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Corvette, again

Thank you for your post, and your anecdote.
I’m not clear about the relevance or application of your story; you’re saying that someone who has committed an offence can get off on a technicality (which happens in British courts also)
Maybe I can see the relevance; I would say in the Corvette debate you are arguing for a precise reading of the rules (or, a rule) without looking at the bigger picture, which chimes with your cyclist story. There are always two ways of looking at something. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS I've just had a look at your userpage. I have to say I'm a bit gob-smacked; you are arguing there for consistency in naming articles, yet you are fighting tooth and nail at Corvette for a strict application of the PT guideline, and have rejected a suggestion at WP:D arguing for more definition in what counts as a primary meaning, which is inevitably leading to more and more articles being moved to titles that are completely inconsistent with the conventions of the project they belong to. A puzzled Xyl 54 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance required

On Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire#Move_decision_NOT_a_Consensus there is a discussion about a move decision that was made prematurely. Unlike the discussion on Corvette was it was not kept open long, so no consensus was reached. Please can you help get this one reopened.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that wording at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It needs to be fixed, one way or the other.

1. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal
2. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC_wording_change_proposal_.232

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: This

Regarding this

“ A barnstar for the lamest and most contrived WP:RM decision I've ever seen? Interesting. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC) ”

I‘m asking you to delete this, or (if you feel strongly about it) move it to my talk page. Your gripe over this is with me, not Future Perfect, and as it stands looks like sour grapes.
The reason I gave it is as I said; there no easy answer to that RM, and nobody else seemed prepared to do it. Whichever way it went somebody would have been pissed off, and as likely as not someone would have been giving FPAS grief over it. Which is pretty much what has happened, n’est-ce pas?
I do not want to reply on FP’s page, and spark a row with you there over it, which is why I’m making the request to you direct. Xyl 54 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Xyl, Born2cycle - in my view you both have dirty hands here:

• Xyl - Because one of the parties to the dispute gave FP the barnstar, it came across as parading your triumph in the faces of others.
• Born2cycle - Your sour grapes response to Xyl's action was not a nice thing to do either.

Please can we move on. There is more to life than arguing which point of view was right in a long debate that is now closed.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue for me is not the outcome of that proposal, but how lame and contrived the reasoning was in that decision. The bigger issue is that we need better reasoned arguements and decisions in these discussions so that we have better predictability and stability in our titles. This isn't sour grapes, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; if it seems like I’m crowing over this, I apologize. That certainly wasn’t my intention, and I spent a while on the wording so as to avoid giving that impression. Good to know I got it so spectacularly wrong! Xyl 54 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Who provides the services"

On Talk:Libertarianism, you asked a couple questions, that I'd like to answer here:

• "who enforces the regulation, provides the health insurance, and supports the systems for people who need them if not the government?"

The distinction between capitalist and socialist libertarianism is important; but it is only one manner of classifying people who espouse libertarian beliefs. This manner of classification is based on their economic views (i.e. on how the products of peoples' labor is to be socially distributed) and their view of human nature (selfish/individualistic/treacherous vs. compassionate/social/honest).

Another important distinction is between statists, minarchists, and anarchists. This manner of classification is based on fundamental disagreements about the nature of the State.

I personally believe the philosophical position of statist/minarchist libertarians (of the left or right variety) to be inconsistent and irrational, and so I do not believe that a lucid answer to your question (i.e. one that wasn't based on faulty premises or poor reasoning) is possible from them.

I can only give you a coherent answer from the anarchist position. My (brief) answer in the case of the anarchist socialists (who make up the majority of libertarian socialists) is "Just as in a right-libertarian system voluntary associations of free individuals are to provide these services. In the case of the socialist variety, these associations are motivated by concern for the welfare of others (because they believe that a strong community is required to have a healthy and full-filling life). In the case of the capitalist variety, they are motivated by individual self-interest, and the belief that the associating with others will somehow increase one's profits or individual well-being."

• "But libertarian socialists(2) also support laws that, for example, enforce Redistribution of wealth, which violate the property rights of those who have the wealth to start with."

Not everyone believes that property rights should override other rights such as the right to eat and not be poisoned. Some people believe that property rights should only be protected so far as their protection doesn't result in harm to other people. Most socialists believe that people have a right to not be defrauded and robbed. What they don't believe is that I should be allowed to have a bunch of surplus food, and deny it to you while you're starving, saying "It's mine!".

Another important point is that not everyone believes that just because you are wealthy, that you accumulated that wealth in a manner that is morally legitimate. Most socialists believe that wealth is socially produced, and that everyone has an equal claim to the products of social labor. To them the statement that a doctor is more socially valuable than a janitor or farmer is absurd (e.g. try getting surgery in a hospital without food and a cleaning staff).

Anyhow, as I said on the talk page, it seems that you might want to read a bit more about the mechanisms libertarian socialists have actually proposed to deal with economic distribution and the prevention of anti-social activity. I think this will answer your question in a more significant way. A good place to start would be to browse high-quality sources that are cited in the articles anarchism, anarchist communism, libertarian socialism, etc.

Sorry for the lengthy post -- but this is why I don't feel like this sort of discussion is suited to the article's talk page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food. it is the right of a hungry person to take food from others, or kill them if they resist. it is the right of a sick person to take medication, or take medication from those who are not sick, or less sick. you have a right to shelter, or to share shelter with others if you have none. you have a right earn a living, to force others to share the means of production. you have a right to be educated by forcing others to educate you. Jrtay, this doesn't sound very liberty to me. it sounds more like we are free to live as long as others have as good of life as ours. we are free only after every person in the world is fed. until then, we are bound by threat of violence to labor for others, perhaps never achieving such a lofty state, and spending our whole lives in servitude. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all. -- Thomas Jefferson (to me it sounds like Jefferson's "democrat" is our "libertarian")

-- Avanu (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation of a possible example of BLP Abuse.

A long time ago you stated that if a clear cut case study of BLP abuse it should be given as an example. What do you think of the example I gave on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP zealot Does this fit the bill?

Sorry 'bout that

It had been inactive for two days, with no sign of emerging consensus. I guess I'll give it some more time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem; it was unlucky timing. However, since you closed the last one, you might not be seen as totally objective any more. Maybe another admin should close this one. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that there's no consensus. The admin who closed this one now makes some good points in his closing rationale. Can I ask why this important to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name stability

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules : The articles Ezhiki places under X (rural locality|urban-type settlment|village) are NOT cities. And several of them are not unique localities named X. This is invoking extra move and dab work. See Aban, Russia, Aksha, Russia and the move history. Aksha started under a unambiguous name, was moved to an ambiguous name and now moved again to one that is less ambiguous. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Our solution at WP:AT

It works for me. Thank you for being understanding and patient with my concerns.

There is only one down side that I see with our approach... our solution can only work once per page. If someone else wants to quote a different section of WP:AT in a different essay... they can not use <onlyinclude>) without really messing things up. (I think the end result would be that we would end up with both marked sections appearing in both essays).

However, I don't know how likely this will be... and we can deal with it when and if it actually happens. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said I don't think it's a very good solution in general; however consensus seems to be that this is a very rare need. I think people just don't fully realize how useful transclusion can be, and, if they did, they would appreciate the more general approach I initially used. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Imagine if 10 people wrote essays... each relating to separate sections of a policy (not all that impossible), and each essay used transclusion (normal transclusion, as you first wanted to do, as opposed to what we ended doing). We would end up with 10 separate transclusion pages... The edit history of the policy would end up being spread over those 10 separate pages... and to watch changes we would end up having to watch 10 pages. Utter chaos.

No, we came to a solution that will work once, and that is good... but as a general idea, I still firmly believe that transclusion simply causes too many headaches on policy pages... and thus should be discouraged for policy pages. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an extreme example, as it's more likely that one or two key sections are the ones to be transcluded by all.

Anyway, WP:AfD is comprised of a number of transcluded separated sections, each with its own history and watch list. Why would it be more of a problem here than there?

You keep assuming that breaking up a page into separate pages is "utter chaos". It's not that at all. It's just different... a matter of thinking of each transcluded section as a separate distinct self-contained entity, even though it's all presented as one coherent policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is all that extreme. It depends on which policy you are talking about. WP:AT impacts a whole bunch of other policies and guidelines, and it gets quoted a lot. But these other policies/guidelines each focus on different sections of WP:AT, so they each quote different sections of it. The same happens with other policies... WP:V for example is such a central concept to Wikipedia as a whole that different parts of it are referred to (and often quoted) in many different policies and guidelines (not to mention essays)

As for AfD... Could you give me a few examples of which parts of WP:AfD are comprised of transcluded sections (and, if you know, briefly explain why they were transcluded)? I think we are talking about different (and perhaps unique) situations here, but I need to better understand what you are referring if I am to comment. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all moot as I figured out how to do selective transclusion. It's explained atWP:SELTRANS. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence

Hi Born2cycle,

Thank you for approaching me about this issue. I closed the requested move discussion you mention as "no consensus to move" for the reason I provided in the closing summary: Wikipedia's precision and disambiguation guidelines support natural modes of disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation. The result of a move discussion should never be determined based on a tally of votes. According to Wikipedia's policy about level of consensus, "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale... Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." Arguments in support of this particular move went against Wikipedia's precision and disambiguation guidelines, which reflect community consensus more accurately than those few views expressed in one limited move discussion. If you continue to disagree with the current article title, I recommend starting a discussion to change our precision and disambiguation guidelines.

Neelix (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I believe you, like some of the those opposed to the proposal, are misunderstanding the guidelines with respect to preferring "natural disambiguation". WP:PRECISION even says that parenthetic disambiguations have the advantage "that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English", which is definitely the case for this topic. Note also that the examples given are Cato the Younger and Cato the Elder. It's not a coincidence that these disambiguations are commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the respective topics. That is not the case for "United States Declaration of Independence". In other words, Cato the Younger is a natural disambiguation, but "United States Declaration of Independence" is not natural at all.

Now, if one of the two candidates is significantly more concise than the other, then that's worthy of consideration, but that's not the case here.

I suppose the guideline could be edited to be more clear on this point, but it already means this, and, I'm sorry, but you made a very bad call... going against guidelines and against consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible incivility page

I like the idea of a page that makes clear this is a rising issue and that it has negative implications for Wikipedia. I'm of two minds about the title. On the one hand, "Zero tolerance" solidifies the seriousness of the issue. On the other, it might be interpreted as as extremist fuddy-duddism that might alienate editors who are against incivility but don't feel strongly about it. I'm a bit stumped for an alternative — maybe something like "Task force against incivility" would give it an air of cooperation and openness to input. I'm sure wiser minds that mine can come up with other ideas, but the gist of what you suggest is right on: There's no reason whatsoever for insults and name-calling on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hesitant about "zero-tolerance" too. It's just a place to start. My objection to incivility extends beyond the insults and name-calling. It can be more subtle than that too, just doing things because you know it will get under your "opponents" skin, whatever that may be, for example. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want a partial map of the minefield you're sauntering onto here, just ask. There are some scary pages around here. You'll get used to not having legs though, because it's the good fight you're fighting. No joke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon thread on WP:DRN

Hi Born2cycle, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. I thought I should probably let you know that I've closed the Linda McMahon discussion, as neither of the original editors involved had posted for a few days, and things have also become quiet on the article and the article's talk page. I realise that you are not entirely happy with the moderators' comments on the thread, but I would really like to keep the noticeboard focused on the original issues that are brought there, which is why I closed the thread before the sub-section that you introduced had time to fully play out. That said, I am quite open to having a discussion about the behaviour of the moderators - as I said in the closing remarks, this is a new noticeboard and I'm sure we could all do with feedback about how we are doing. I suggest talking about this on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and I apologise if the close looked like it was stepping on your toes. I assure you that no offense was meant. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert...

I'm not sure that the edits I made make sense in the context of the formula you have set up and I'm running out with insufficient time to analyze if it works so (not that you wouldn't anyway), but please do revert what I just did at your discretion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Page titles

I just wanted to say, I've been thinking about focusing exclusively on page titles for Wikipedia but I was concerned that I would be getting a lot of the type of criticism that you listed on your user page. After seeing someone else have that interest and defend it I am convinced that it is indeed a worthy service and that I shouldn't feel bad for giving it its due attention. There's not nearly enough attention given to page titles on Wikipedia, and people don't seem to understand the role a title plays in the framing of an article and how people perceive that article and its content. When it comes to move requests, most seem to degenerate into vague debates about google results, or obscure sources from google which provide that one exception that some people will cling to with tooth and nail to avoid a change they don't like. I believe strongly that we need more people who are willing to read, understand, and interpret the rules in a consistent manner and to not merely vote up or down on a page name based off raw search engine results or their own pre-conceptions of fairness and neutrality. So, thank you for the good work and for making others see the value in it. Vietminh (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I just posted a comment to Cailil's talk page regarding an incident in which you are involved.--SPhilbrickT 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith

If you're going to accuse me of operating in bad faith, then the discussion has become inappropriately personal. On what grounds do you make such an implication? Powers ^T 13:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually believe you're acting in bad faith, and I didn't accuse you of it. But dodging questions and points, while continually bringing up new points, does challenge me with respect to continuing to assume you're acting in good faith. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, though, I'm not bringing up new points. It's true I'm trying to clarify and refine my argument, but that's hardly "moving the goalposts". Powers ^T 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether your new points are actually new or not, you're not answering questions I posed nor addressing points I've made previously. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is our discussion from Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft:

• Oppose common enough term, and an elegant solution. If it violates policy (which I'm not at all convinced it does), WP:IAR covers it nicely. Powers ^T 19:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What specifically in policy - besides the one special exception written for this specific case - might support this title? What is the good reason that is applicable in this particular case to warrant invoking IAR? Since when is "common enough" a reason to go with a title when there is clearly more common title available? I mean, doesn't "common enough" usually only apply when disambiguation is required because the most common title has other uses? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure, that's the most common case, but there's no reason it couldn't also apply as a way to avoid choosing between two national variants of a word. It's not like this is a particularly awkward or unusual descriptor. Powers ^T 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know of any evidence that supports the notion that the current title is not particularly awkward or unusual to refer to this article's topic. To the contrary, "airplane" gets about 21 times more ghits than "fixed-wing aircraft" on Scholar, 35 times more ghits on Books, and 50 times more on regular google.

        I also don't know of any other case like this, don't see the point of having this one exception (plenty of counter-examples like Yoghurt, Association football), and Cor anglais) and the frequent references in talk page discussions indicates it sets a confusing precedent. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

        • You've got the burden of proof backwards; it's impossible to prove a negative (vis, "that the current title is not particularly awkward or unusual"). If you feel it is awkward, you need to prove it. Search hits are evidence only toward popularity, which we've decided to bypass here in favor of a somewhat less-popular but more universal term. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit nicely into the little algorithm you devised, but that's your problem, not ours. Powers ^T 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You made the assertion that the current title is not "particularly awkward or unusual descriptor", not me. "Awkward" is not mentioned at WP:TITLE, so it's irrelevant. What is relevant per WP:TITLE is whether the title is "natural", and that is defined in terms of three characteristics:
            1. "names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"
            2. "to which editors will most naturally link from other articles"
            3. "should convey what the subject is actually called in English".

          Are you suggesting that any of these three characteristics apply better to Fixed-wing aircraft than to Airplane? Evidence of airplane being (2) that "which editors will most naturally link from other articles" is the high number of links to Airplane (not to Fixed-wing aircraft, despite the article having been located there for years) in article space. Less directly that supports (1) in favor Airplane as well, and the ghit ratios I mentioned above support (3) in favor of Airplane.

          As for whether the usage is "usual" or "unusual", ghits relative to other uses is the only way I can think of to substantiate the claim either way, which I did. Can you think of any others? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          No, I'm not suggesting that; my whole point has been that in this case, it's good enough to justify given the intractability of choosing between the other two options. It's quite apparent that you disagree, but I'm not wrong just because you do. Powers ^T 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          Would you please decide what your position is and stick to it, instead of moving the goalposts every time you post? Now it's "good enough" and "intractibility"? Really? Are you going to hold this position for more than one comment?

          Of course I disagree it's "good enough". Of course it's "wrong" (your word, but I'll go with it). I mean, the only way a title could reasonably be characterized as "wrong" is if it's not the title indicated by the primary naming criteria, and the current title is not indicated by that criteria at all. If titles can be "wrong", how can any title be more wrong than this one?

          What is so intractible to choose between the two options that are actually commonly used to refer to this topic? There are countless other topics in WP which have both American and British spellings and we choose one or the other, why not for this topic? Since when is "intractability" a reason to choose a clearly less common (and wrong) name for a title? Do you know of any other article in which the most common name, and the second most common name, are not used simply due to "intractability", and, so, a much less common (but "good enough") name is used instead? This is u n p r e c e d e n t e d, and to say otherwise is wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          Typographic dramatics do not make your point more persuasive. I don't see any goalpost-moving here; from my initial comment I said that the current term was "common enough". If I'm using slightly different terminology now, it's to a) avoid repeating myself (something I try to avoid, even if you don't) and b) attempt to make my argument clearer to you. You are treating the guidance at WP:CRITERIA as gospel, and it isn't. If it doesn't fit with the title we've decided is best for this article, then the policy must change, not the title; policy follows practice, not the other way around. More importantly, why does this upset you so? You seem to feel that having a clear and universal set of deterministic steps for choosing an article title is necessary somehow, but not only is it not necessary, it's also not possible. No set of rules can apply to every situation; that's exactly why WP:IAR was written. Powers ^T 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          Bringing up intractibility (without basis, by the way) is moving the goal posts. Yes, you did say "common enough" before, which lead to the claim that it's not awkward or unusual, to which I pointed out what matters is "natural", and why the current title is not "natural", to which you responded by ignoring all that and simply asserting it's "good enough".

          "If it doesn't fit with the title we've decided is best for this article, then the policy must change". Well, the title that has supposedly been decided is best (never mind it doesn't have consensus support) doesn't fit with the guidance at WP:CRITERIA, so, by your own words, the policy must change. Well, if must change, go change it.

          To invoke WP:IAR you need to have a good reason. What is different about this situation from the plethora of other similar situations where there are also both UK and US spellings? What warrants special unique treatment in this case?

          For your more philosophical questions, I'm going to have to write an essay to answer, but I for now just say this. It is possible to have a set of rules, and I'll say a set of coherent and consistent rules, that applies to every situation within the rather simple and well-contained domain of deciding articles for titles. And if the rules actually don't apply to some situation, they can always be modified to handle those types of situations too, like you say. But that's not the case here. Here, the existing rules clearly apply and indicate a particular perfectly good title that meets all the criteria well, and yet you want to use a different title. That's not WP:IAR. That's WP:JDLI.

          And the reason it makes me upset is because we have a perfectly good set of rules that, if followed, we'd have much more consensus about these titles, and thus much fewer disagreements and debates. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          You started the debate! If you want fewer disagreements and debates, then don't start one! This title appears to have been stable for some time. How you can say there's no consensus for it is beyond me. And that consensus has been verified by this discussion, in which the majority are clearly opposed to changing the title. Powers ^T 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          Moving the goalposts again, and still not addressing all the previous points I made? I'm have too much difficulty assuming good faith now. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

          I'm not moving any goalposts. If you don't stop misrepresenting my position, we're done here. Powers ^T 13:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions asked that you did not answer in that discussion:

1. What specifically in policy - besides the one special exception written for this specific case - might support this title?
2. What is the good reason that is applicable in this particular case to warrant invoking IAR?
3. Since when is "common enough" a reason to go with a title when there is clearly more commonly used title available?
4. The only way a title could reasonably be characterized as "wrong" is if it's not the title indicated by the primary naming criteria, and the current title is not indicated by that criteria at all. If titles can be "wrong", how can any title be more wrong than this one?
5. What is so intractible to choose between the two options that are actually commonly used to refer to this topic?
6. There are countless other topics in WP which have both American and British spellings and we choose one or the other, why not for this topic?
7. Since when is "intractability" a reason to choose a clearly less common (and wrong) name for a title?
8. Do you know of any other article in which the most common name, and the second most common name, are not used simply due to "intractability", and, so, a much less common (but "good enough") name is used instead?

Points that you did not address:

1. I don't know of any evidence that supports the notion that the current title is not particularly awkward or unusual to refer to this article's topic. To the contrary, "airplane" gets about 21 times more ghits than "fixed-wing aircraft" on Scholar, 35 times more ghits on Books, and 50 times more on regular google.

   I also don't know of any other case like this, don't see the point of having this one exception (plenty of counter-examples like Yoghurt, Association football), and Cor anglais) and the frequent references in talk page discussions indicates it sets a confusing precedent.

(no, claiming I have the burden of proof backwards is not addressing the point that there is no evidence supporting the notion that current titles i not particularly awkward of unusual to refer to this article's topic)

1. "Awkward" is not mentioned at WP:TITLE, so it's irrelevant. What is relevant per WP:TITLE is whether the title is "natural", and that is defined in terms of three characteristics:
   1. "names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article"
   2. "to which editors will most naturally link from other articles"
   3. "should convey what the subject is actually called in English".
2. Here, the existing rules clearly apply and indicate a particular perfectly good title that meets all the criteria well, and yet you want to use a different title. That's not WP:IAR. That's WP:JDLI.
3. And the reason it makes me upset is because we have a perfectly good set of rules that, if followed, we'd have much more consensus about these titles, and thus much fewer disagreements and debates.

When you ignore so many questions and points, you'll have to pardon me for finding the assumption of good faith particularly difficult to make. Especially when the particular questions and points you ignored require you to examine your position seriously. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not well-suited to point-by-point refutations, so I apologize if I missed what you felt was an important point. I try to keep my responses succinct rather than verbose, and so I focus on what I feel to be the main point of an item to which I'm responding. To the extent I erred in finding that main point, I'm sorry.

What I feel you're missing in all this, however, is that I'm operating from a different set of assumptions than you are. You say we have rules set down in policy, and we must follow them in all article naming discussions. I say, the rules reflect practice, not dictate it, and if we decide by consensus that "fixed-wing aircraft" is the best available title, then the policy must reflect that decision, not prevent it. Given the number of people who have opposed your proposal to move the article, I think it's safe to say there's a strong consensus for the status quo, wouldn't you? If, as you say, it's not a valid title per policy, then it's the policy that must change, not the title.

I'm not trying to give you the runaround, though I can almost see how you might think so given our different starting assumptions. I think I've been quite reasonable and I've spent a fair bit of time on that discussion -- particularly since you seem to have keyed in on only my argument and have not criticized the other Opposers' arguments nearly as much or as frequently.

But if your ultimate goal is "much more consensus about these titles", I just ask that you look at the strong consensus that has developed for "fixed-wing aircraft" and leave it be.

--Powers ^T 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl Heinrich Schultz

I thought of another example where we allow reliable sources to guide how we disambiguate. This example is, I think, better than English language versus English people:

Two botanists, both German, both named Carl Heinrich Schultz, were born just seven years apart and died just four years apart. They were disambiguated in the real world, in their lifetimes, by adding a reference to their town of birth; hence Carl Heinrich 'Bipontinus' Schultz and Carl Heinrich 'Schultzenstein' Schultz. I don't think anyone would argue that we should ignore the real-world 'natural' disambiguation, and instead manufacture our own parenthesised disambiguation term.

I dropped out of the precision discussion. I don't know where it has headed; maybe it has moved past this issue and my example is no longer relevant to the discussion. I can't be bothered catching up so I'm leaving this here for you to do with it what you will.

Hesperian 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting... though I have to wonder how prevalent that particular form of disambiguation is in reliable sources. The first one I found at gbooks uses Karl Heinrich Schultz-Schultzstein (not Schuletzenstein) [9] If indeed the sources do not disambiguate consistently, then I would favor using parenthetic disambiguation... Carl Heinrich Schultz (Schultzenstein) --Born2cycle (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comma convention for military units

Category:Indian Air Force aircraft squadrons - I thought comma is only for place names? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Born2cycle, hi. I want to apologize for getting irritable with you over the whole Gandhi thing. Sometimes I get frustrated working here, for good or bad reasons, and sometimes when I'm frustrated, I keep typing instead of walking away. Please understand that I appreciate your interest and energy that you're putting towards our titling policy, which is something I've come to care about, for better or for worse.

I recognize that you and I, and 99% of editors here, are on the same team, and I sure as heck couldn't do it alone. I'm sorry for directing my frustration your way. I strive to improve my interpersonal skills in this area, and any forbearance and patience you can spare is greatly appreciated.

I'm usually pretty cheerful, I think, so I hope you get to see more of happy/friendly GTB, and less of frustrated/annoyed GTB. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. I figured you were having a bad day. Your reply today spoke volumes. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts about the PNC

Hi. I'm about to close the move request at Female genital mutilation. I've read the discussion there, and I see you quoting the PNC. It's bothering me a little bit, because it feels really top-down. Then I realize that my analysis of the Gandhi move also had that characteristic. If we look at the written criteria, and then decide which title fits them best, then aren't we doing top-down rule-following? Maybe instead, we should stop quoting policy, and start weighing arguments on their own merits.

This is tricky, though, because the criteria are written down, so we appeal to them. It just... feels like law, and it's not law. Those criteria are definitely written incorrectly, and probably always will be, and we're not being very up-front about that. The one person opposing the move over there made an argument based on NPOV, and the other editors present didn't find the argument to be persuasive. Furthermore, the one opposing argument isn't one I've seen succeed in the past, so I don't think we're violating a previous consensus. That's why I'm going to move the page; not because of the naming criteria. Isn't that how it ought to be?

This does, of course, beg the question: Why write down criteria at all? I think the point is that a local consensus may not represent a global consensus. In cases where we see people agreeing to do something different from the criteria, we should verify that it's not just a local effect, and that the community at-large really wants to differ from the PNC in that case. That means that the PNC, far from being rules, are just touchstones to help us notice when the community is making a decision that contradicts prior decisions.

It's okay for us to contradict prior decisions, but we should do what it takes to be certain that the community really wants to do that. If the same kind of exception-making happens a lot, then we can add it to the criteria list, not so that people do what it says, but so that we know that it's not necessary to double-check, because that double-check has been done many times already.

I don't know, am I on the right track here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. Policy is not written in stone, but it is written, and it means something. It means a lot. It means that it reflects a good, but not perfect, effort to represent the global consensus, the global consensus that is supposed to guide us in our decisions. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, much better than nothing, and they are rules, that's why when we ignore them, we call it ignoring rules.

One might argue that a particular decision be based on something that is not written in policy but never-the-less reflects, or at least should reflect, global consensus, but the burden is on him to show that is the case. That's the good reason we are supposed to have when we ignore rules. Further, I would say that ignoring rules should be relatively rare, and every such case where ignoring rules prevails is almost certainly a good case for updating the written policy, so the next time we have that situation the rules don't have to be ignored.

Wikipedia can only benefit if there is more, rather than less, predictability and stability in its titles. I don't know how you do that without having rules and following them.

Lately, I've been wondering if the whole policy would not be much clearer and reflect global consensus better if it were rewritten to be more in terms of the criteria. I'm envisioning the criteria listed at the top, and the rest of the policy written in terms of what those criteria mean, and they are balanced and given different weights in different situations, etc. In other words, to provide better guidance. That is, to better reflect global guidance on how we decide titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been having similar thoughts about how that page is written. It's kind of sprawling and random now.

There's only one thing you've said here that I really disagree with. "every such case where ignoring rules prevails is almost certainly a good case for updating the written policy". I think that's how you get sprawling, random policy pages. It's like begging for instruction creep. It would seem better to only update the policy page in cases where an exception has come up over and over again, and consistently works out the same way.

In general, people focus way too much on those pages. I guess I see IAR differently, too. (No need to link; I know all 12 words of that policy, and I wrote most of WP:WIARM.) I ignore all rules with every single edit that I make to this wiki. People should read policy pages a lot less, and think about them on rare occasions only. They should be far from our minds most of the time. We have to actively fight against policies being taken as rules, because if we don't, the problem grows, with instruction creep, red tape, and rampant wiki-lawyering.

When I say I always ignore all rules, I mean that I never take them to be rules. Every single edit is thought of on its own terms. For trivial edits, there's not much to think about (I've just sorted a few hundred stubs, and it was not mentally taxing), but that's still the ideal we're shooting for.

I agree with you about stability in titles, but I'm not willing to write down anything that looks like a rule until I've seen it established in the field many, many times. When we finally do write it down, it's better to phrase it as an observation than as a rule. Imperatives encourage lawyers.

I'll have a look at that page and think about what major edits might be possible. It could certainly use better organization, even if the content remains as it currently is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, semantic point: the fact that we call it "ignoring rules" does not mean that the things we're ignoring really are rules, or should be thought of as such. It's a term of art, and it doesn't quite mean what it looks like it means. A big part of the point of IAR is that they aren't really rules, and that's why it's okay to ignore them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on Admins Board - Etiquette

I noticed your comments on the discussion page. I am curious about who is allowed to comment on the Admins Bd - Wiki etiquette? I had thought that this would be between me and "the other guy" with an admin trying to bring "resolution." Instead, (not unlike an Afd!), people wandering in for other reasons (other threads), are chiming in their two cents and exacerbating, and not really helping, the situation, IMO.

If any of your suggestions can alter that, I, for one, would appreciate it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know anyone is allowed to participate in just about any discussion. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think the etiquette board is one. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Stephen Palmquist for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Palmquist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ozob (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Synthetic logic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Synthetic logic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ozob (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for correcting that spelling on the citation's title here at List of professional cyclists who died during a race. If you know of any reliable sourced references for any information and would like to add it, that would be a big help. When I started on the List in July 2010 it was completely unsourced, so I've been working on it in bits and pieces, one cyclist at a time. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Exasperated and depressed

Many hard working volunteers go to great lengths to ascertain consensus and reflect it as accurately and clearly as possible in policy and guidelines. It's not perfect, but in many cases a great job has been done. I think the area of title selection is one area, because in the vast majority of cases policy indicates one particular title rather clearly.

Part of that policy is the WP:POVTITLE section which clearly explains the relationship of the neutrality pillar to COMMONNAME in deciding titles. In essence, neutrality does not indicate any title, or dissuade us from using any particular title. Instead, it requires us to look at the sources to determine what they use, and use that.

This simply idea has been turned on its head in the pro-choice/pro-life debacle. Now those articles are at Support for the legalisation of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion. Why? Because "pro-life" in particular was deemed to not be neutral. And, yet, a significant majority of the sources clearly use "pro-life". So to use something else is actually a violation of neutrality. See how it's turned on its head? This has got to be the dumbest title decision I've ever encountered, worse even than Fixed-wing aircraft, because at least that name has some use in reliable sources, and is not completely invented. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I didn't want to go into detail on the mediation request page, but: I meant it when I said you need to read the mediation discussion on this before sounding off. Here's one list I put up, showing that almost all of the top ten newspapers in the US deliberately avoid using pro-life except where they are reporting what someone said, or what a group is called. The AP manual of style and other in-house stylebooks explicitly recommend avoiding pro-life and pro-choice as they are non-neutral. As noted elsewhere in the discussion, CNN and NPR also do not use pro-life and pro-choice as descriptors, again because they are not considered neutral. COMMONNAME recommends we look at major media outlets, and what they say is pretty clear to me. There is also the issue of non-US usage of pro-life and pro-choice versus other terms, something also raised in the debate. If there is any clarity here, it is that pro-choice and pro-life are clearly not appropriately neutral titles for wikipedia, which must follow RS as best it can. There is a host of editors insisting over and over that pro-life is the "common name" according to policy, but they're simply not acknowledging any evidence that runs counter to this. This noise may have misled you. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the first item on your list.

1. the Wall Street Journal - [10] This is a blog, one person expressing his opinion about what he or she believes the WSJ should do.

You also dismiss the NYT as "already discussed", but I find plenty of references to "pro-life" there[11], as discussed at Talk:Opposition to the legalization of abortion#Do reliable sources really avoid "pro-life"?. Sorry, but I don't find this kind of "evidence" to be very compelling.

Anyway, if the argument is that some other term is used more commonly than "pro-life", then evidence of that needs to be demonstrated, and that should be the title. Making up a contrived descriptive compromise name is exactly what we're not supposed to do, according to policy which clearly states: do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Fair enough on the WSJ. I had been trying to find statements of policy rather than google searches. However, a site-limited google search shows that anti-abortion and pro-life are used interchangeably. It's a about 2-1 in favour of pro-life but a lot of those pro-life references are to what people have said, or what people call themselves. This kind of ratio is clearly not what COMMONNAME had in mind when considering issues of neutrality. Note that this is the first time anyone who supports pro-life has had a look at this evidence. That is my point - this kind of evidence was ignored (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As for the NYT - well, you've proved my point in that you didn't read the debate before commenting as NYT policy had been covered before (which is, ironically, exasperating and depressing ;-) ). Furthermore, and as a result, you simply ignore the argument that references to pro-life in titles and verbatim quotes cannot be considered part of any count. Just for good measure here the NYT deputy news editor states quite clearly In the news pages, we rigorously avoid loaded terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice." We strive for more neutral, factual terms like "opponents of abortion" and "abortion-rights groups.".

2. As I've pointed to you before, it's not important that you personally don't find the editorial policies of major media organisations "compelling" evidence. What's important is that it was brought up in debate. You and others are claiming that such evidence (which is produced in direct reference to WP:AT's recommendation that it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals) - simply wasn't there at all. This is not true. Some are also claiming, despite these policies that explicitly state that terms like pro-life and pro-choice, that there is no reason at all to consider pro-life POV. I find this hard to understand in an honest wikipedia editor when you have very major English-language media outlets stating otherwise.

3. I honestly think you're confusing whether or not you agree with the outcome of a mediation, and whether the mediation was carried out correctly. It's the second that's important, and before getting exasperated and depressed, you might want to read the discussion in full.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pssst, VK. Born2cycle is on the record as being pro-choice! What's your next theory? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Born2cycle. I don't know if this is the kind of suggestion you're looking for, but I really think it's the best and most helpful thing I can say...

Sometimes you have to let it go. None of us is in the position to make sure that everything goes the way it should go around here. A huge part of life is choosing your battles, and when it's clear that the tide is coming in, no matter how wrong the tide seems... nobody can fight the tide. Wait until next time around, and restate your case then, but you can't control these things.

Especially around an issue like abortion, we're simply not very likely to find an optimal solution, with respect to any number of details, and we just have to live with that. I was involved for months and months of my life, a few years ago, wrangling over the first sentence over the abortion article. That sentence currently sucks, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Honestly, the best you can do about issues that you really care about is to steer clear of them, and only work on things where you're not going to invest anything emotionally. There are things in your life that deserve your emotional investment more than Wikipedia does, and if you let something go, a dozen people will take your place and worry about it for you.

You, from what I've seen, seem to be an idealist, and that's a beautiful, beautiful thing to be. I wish the world were kinder to idealists, because I've got those leanings, too. However, the Wikipedia community gets some things wrong, no matter what sincere idealists may say, and there's just nothing we can do about that. You've got to take care of yourself before you worry about titles of articles here, and there's nothing shameful or weak about that.

I'm not even going to try and address the policy issues here, because nothing I can say will be helpful. Sometimes, you just have to walk away, and be an eventualist about it. Things will come out in the wash, someday.

I try to be extremely passive here, and just reflect what's happening in the community, rather than try to exert any kind of control. Wikipedia is never going to be rule-bound, or even consistent, and that's actually a really good thing. The day we're entirely consistent, Wikipedia dies. No joke. Find areas where you can make a difference, and work on those. Be prepared to give up more times than you succeed. The comic books don't show it, but Superman let a lot more people die than he ever saved.

You're a good one, Born2cycle. Hang in there, and don't wear it too hard. I'd like it if you're still here in 5 years, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pssst, GTB. Born2cycle is on the record as being pro-choice! What's your next theory? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read what I said. No "theory" is involved, and I find your reply completely unnecessary and unhelpful, not to mention tacky and obnoxious. I suspect you're better than that. Why not rise to the occasion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What Born2cycle really cares about is seeing policy applied correctly. He has no emotional investment in either side of the debate. The day we start ignoring our own policies, Wikipedia dies. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in pursuing this conversation with you, Kenatipo. Thanks for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I apologize to you completely and sincerely. My remarks to you were obnoxious and tacky, and I should have read you more closely before commenting. Your advice to Born2 was genuine and heart-felt. Again, I'm sorry. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Kenatipo. No hard feelings; on the contrary, it takes character to do what you just did. I look forward to seeing you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, GTBacchus. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seva, it might be true that better evidence was presented in the discussion that supported the point that "pro-life" is not the most common name (which begs the question... what, then, is the most common name?) than was made clear by the closer, but my issue is primarily with the decision as stated in the closing statement, and the points upon which it seemed to have been based on the most.

It's quite obvious that Pro-life movement is not ideal and has problems for a variety of reasons, including POV issues and that it's chiefly American usage.

We do try to avoid national varieties, but we only do so when we have good alternatives. That's why we have Yoghurt and not Milk fermented by Lactobacillus bacteria. So being a national variety doesn't mean it can't be used or should not be used, or even that it's not the most common name. It's just one more factor to consider, just as are the POV concerns. Those concerns don't mean that anything is better than Pro-life movement.

For example, I don't see any kind of standard analysis weighing Pro-life movement vs. Opposition to the legalization of abortion in terms of the the principal naming criteria. The approach taken seems to have been to reject Pro-life movement and find something, anything, instead. Zhang even essentially said as much: "This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names." Again, that's exactly what policy says not to do.

I will grant you that Pro-life movement is not ideal. That's life. We often can't have ideal titles. But that's still a long way from suggesting a title that is better. I presume that you'd agree that Opposition to the legalization of abortion is of course not ideal either. So it doesn't have the POV and national variety issues, but don't you agree it's less natural, less recognizable, less concise and less consistent, and that's the criteria we're supposed to use? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that the position of so many serious news outlets on the non-neutrality (and their own studied non-usage) of "pro-life" simply rules it out of consideration (My original view was that the proposals were simply better, mainly for geographical reasons - that changed to strong support for a move once I found out about all the media stylebook policies). However, I recognise that while the obvious alternative anti-abortion movement has support based on stylebook policies, it is contested in some real world quarters and as such is also problematic. However, common name is not the sole basis for titling. There is also WP:NDESC, which was cited, and which Stephen Zhang was following (also cited was an ARBCOM decision recognising the use of NDESC in resolving titling disputes). My understanding of the rules regarding "inventing" titles is that this means avoiding the creation of neologisms (for example, "Abortion abolitionism" or "Wade-ism") rather than simple descriptions. There are cases such as Climatic Research Unit email controversy, where Climategate ( a redirect) would win on the interpretation of commonname being used by some people; neutrality concerns are too great for climategate to be used. Thus, it's acceptable in policy for a neutral descriptive title to be used where no acceptable common name can be found. This is not "ideal", but it keeps more in line with the core policy of neutrality. For me, the problem lies in the real world, not in the choices that wikipedia makes. One thing that I complained about during the mediation was that no particular case was made, with reference to sources, that titles beginning "opposition to..." are POV. "Opposition to genocide" sounds quite positive, as does "opposition to racism". Anyway, I am not here to convince you that these arguments is right, but that they were the basis of the closing as I understand it, and that it was not as egregious a closing as you might have thought.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and explanation, especially admitting that you believe "pro-life" is "ruled out of consideration" due entirely to the neutrality issue. You appear to be applying the norms and standards regarding neutrality that we often use to exclude article content on title decision making, which is very different, and for which neutrality is only supposed to be one factor to consider.

Further, your take on those newspaper polices seems to be far more extreme than is intended. Most still use the term at least some of the time, therefore its use by us remains natural, recognizable and expected for our users. In contrast, any contrived title violates the principle of least surprise. And the use of "pro-life" is common among recent (2011) scholarly publications[12]. Reliable sources are use it, therefore our use of it is neutral. Choosing not to use is, arguably, a violation of neutrality.

WP:NDESC exists because we have articles about topics that don't have names, like List of music recording certifications and Bicycle law in California. To use NDESC to justify inventing a name as a means of compromising between opposing points of view is not its intent and is exactly contrary to what policy says.

No matter how you try to slice it, policy based on consensus created especially for this situation was blatantly ignored and contradicted. If the moderator, closer and others had instead chosen to follow consensus and policy, a title that complied much better with our primary naming criteria would and could have been selected, and that's the process that should be encouraged by our admins, rather than this "novel solution" (Cavalry's term [13]) which favors and encourages going against policy and consensus. It sets a terrible precedent, and that's my biggest concern. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're relying too much on blind google searches. Newspapers that disavow the use of "pro-life" as a descriptor do not edit people's speech or change the names of organisations (although it has happened by accident). Where there is a dispute, it's important not just to look for evidence that backs up your case, but to look at all the evidence that is there. I can understand someone saying I am taking a strong position based on this evidence, but given the injunction to look at major media outlets, I think it's a perfectly reasonable one. There's more than one paragraph in that policy. By the way, there's no such thing as precedent in wikipedia - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I gave the example of climategate as an illustration of how common name can be interpreted, not as a precedent.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, VK, I feel you are not hearing the repeated explanations of how COMMONNAME is NPOV. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept the New York Times and Washington Post, etc., as Reliable Sources. I just think that anyone who believes that they are "objective" and "neutral" must be living in la-la land. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seva, ponimaitsi, major media outlets is only one of the types of sources we are to look at in terms of usage when "determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used." It's not what we're supposed to look at in deciding whether some name should simply be "ruled out of consideration". In fact, deciding to rule a name out of consideration based on the policy of newspapers is not something we're supposed to do at all - that's something you made up!

We agree the result of the approach that you favor is that the current title is CRAP. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Where does it say we're not supposed to follow mainstream media organisations' views on what is and isn't neutral as a descriptor (and the subsequent usage patterns)? I'm interested that you're not arguing instead for "anti-abortion" rather than pro-life, given that this is also very frequent, and in most major outlets much better attested as a descriptor. And I note that you've removed my pointing out Kenatipo's attempts to politicise the discussion (again, go read the mediation discussion: the closer was obviously referring to him when he mentioned people "unable to put aside their political leanings" ) as uncivil, yet still you've called what I support "crap". Charming.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon my interruption, but didn't B2c say that, according to your approach, the current title is "crap"? That's a world of difference away from saying your approach is crap. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the result of the approach that I favour is that the current title is "crap", and I take this fairly as saying that "what I support" is therefore "crap". Either way, it's not the height of civility.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we're just reading that differently. I'll refrain from further comment here, as I'm not trying to upset anyone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly offended, I just thought more than anything it was ironic given my own comments had been struck as uncivil. Like you, I'm not here to upset anyone either.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, my Russki yazik is a little rusty. Does ponimaitsi mean "you (stricken)", or "(stricken)? LOL!!! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seva, ponimaitsi, you make the common error of thinking that people with opinions can't possibly play the Wikipedia game by the rules. Such thinking is ludicrous. Secondly, if you think I'm uncivil, you don't get around much on Wikipedia. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oy. It was joke; trying to lighten it up a little. I said Cavalry's "novel solution" (deciding on the current title) sets a bad precedent. You said it doesn't set a bad precedent due to OTHERCRAPEXISTS... implying you believe that the current title is CRAP. That is, you're the one essentially referring to the current title as "CRAP" by citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS, no? If it's not CRAP, then what relevance is OTHERCRAPEXISTS here? I thought by capitalizing CRAP the connection would be obvious. This time I'll color it too, LOL. In contrast, perhaps I misunderstood, but the comment I removed did not seem to intend to convey positive vibes, if you will.

Where does it say we're not supposed to follow mainstream media organisations' views on what is and isn't neutral as a descriptor (and the subsequent usage patterns)? No where that I know of... but how is that relevant? WP:AT does tell us how we are supposed to decide on titles, and, of all the considerations we are supposed to make, excluding names commonly used in reliable sources, based on newspaper policy about neutrality, is not a factor among them. In fact, excluding names based on neutrality is not among them. Now, if the effect of such policies was to actually reduce usage of the term to the point where something else became most common, that would be relevant.

By the way, anti-abortion is a much better choice than (opens new browser tab, goes to WP, searches for "pro-life", copy/paste) Opposition to the legalization of abortion for much the same reasons that "pro-life" is better than "anti-abortion": per WP:CRITERIA each is more natural, more recognizable, more concise than the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that anti-abortion is much clearer than pro-life, which is a euphemism, and is something which often stands for a wider viewpoint than simply the law on abortion. As an aside, it's important to remember that the pro-choice/pro-life pairing arose out of the American debate and Roe vs. Wade. In the UK the legalisation of abortion was not really about the right to choose (and nothing to do with privacy of the individual); the clinching arguments at the time tended to centre around the welfare of the mother and the problems of backstreet abortions (which is why more liberal christians supported legalisation). The problem with anti-abortion is that some anti-abortion people see it as very POV. As for precedent - I was referring to your edit summary. We don't need to worry about setting precedents.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood your point. You know, maybe we need a general "abortion debate" article and a separate "pro-life movement" article about the movement in the U.S. (since "pro-life" is unique to U.S. usage - adding U.S. to the title would be redundant). --Born2cycle (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As to preferring anti-abortion to pro-life because anti-abortion is "clearer" - that's not a consideration we're supposed to use in deciding titles, believe it or not. Clarity is not one of the principal naming criteria. This is because the title, at least for topics that have names, is supposed to convey "what the subject is actually called in English." You're not necessarily supposed to be able to discern from the title alone what the topic is - that's not a purpose of the title. That's the purpose of the lead. Think about it. Let me see what we get if I click on RANDOM a few times. Without clicking on these... do you know what these articles are about? Sucha, Pomeranian Voivodeship, Leo F. Forbstein, Zachary Crofton, Collezione dei dipinti antichi della Banca Popolare dell'Emilia Romagna, The Motes, Solow residual, Steamboat Round the Bend, Humulone. The point is, unless you're already familiar with a topic and what it's normally called, you won't know what the topic is from the title alone, and you're not supposed to. Sure, if the title happens to be disambiguated, like Michael Thomson (footballer), you can glean some information that you wouldn't have if it were not disambiguated, but it's not disambiguated so that you could tell what the topic is from the title - otherwise we would "disambiguate" even when unnecessary. It's disambiguated because there are other uses and this one is not the primary use.

So we're not supposed to favor a "clearer" name over a more commonly used name, unless the additional clarity is necessary for disambiguation. This is actually stated at WP:PRECISION. In other words, if Pro-life was ambiguous (which it is) and this use was not the primary topic, then we would disambiguate, and that process sometimes involves using a less common but clearer name. But that doesn't apply here because Pro-life is the more commonly used name and this is the primary topic for that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say that, empirically, clarity is a criterion that people use to determine titles. When we wrote down our observations (not rules) of what criteria people use, we didn't think of that one. That doesn't mean it's not a valid criterion. Would you say that clarity is, empirically, not a criterion that Wikipedians sometimes use? What you're calling WP:CRITERIA is just a list of criteria that we noticed people using. That doesn't mean they're the only ones that are acceptable to invoke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

More briefly, WP:CRITERIA is not an exhaustive list of criteria that may be applied. It's just a list of criteria that we noticed people were using, repeatedly. It's observation, not law. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course WP:CRITERIA is not exhaustive, and it's not law, but even if clarity was there, I think it, like precision, would be mostly applicable only for articles that require descriptive titles, or disambiguation... because in practice that's what happens. This is because names - what we call things - are inherently just meaningless tags to which meaning (the association with the topic) has been assigned for reasons that are long forgotten, if they were ever known.

Sure, sometimes people relatively unfamiliar with title decision-making might use clarity (conveying what the topic is from the title alone to someone unfamiliar with topic - presuming someone familiar with the topic would recognize it from the name), but they are usually easily dissuaded from doing so by others, mostly by quoting WP:PRECISION: "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. " I suggest that if we did add clarity to the criteria, it would be essentially redundant, as it would say something like, "be clear, but only as clear as necessary to distinguish from other uses".

If you think about, clarity is rarely a factor, because we mostly just use the name of whatever it is as the title. Look at my RANDOM list above - those topics are surely not clearly identifiable for most, and we could easily add clarity to each of those, but in practice we don't. Looking at the vast majority of our articles, especially if you filter out those that had do be disambiguated, we clearly favor using natural names and concision over clarity .

But again, I'm talking about articles about topics with names. For titles about topics that don't have names, and require descriptive titles, clarity often plays a more important role. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's of some relevance that the clarity issue is raised in RS discussion of stylebooks regarding the topic. It's not something that I made up. Of course there are some article titles where the names give no guide and might be more easily understood by a descriptive title. But I'm pretty sure that in all those cases, there are straightforward common name reasons for having those titles. That is, there are no issues of POV, and no competing names. Where the real world does not provide us with an uncontested common name but competing variants, I see nothing wrong with suggesting that a more descriptive option has an advantage. It relates to the principles of preciseness and recognisability. I admit, it's by no means a clinching argument. Ideally, editors should not be at loggerheads or defending corners, and I think they do this by focussing more on the editing principles they espouse (wikipedia policies and their own consistent interpretation of them) and being open about them, rather than outcomes. If I honestly state in a titling discussion that I prefer clarity, then if someone puts forward an alternative to me based on the principle of clarity I am compelled to look at it. Various means of dispute resolution can then be a community matter of deciding which principles are more important. Attachment to outcomes only causes wikilawyering, and that's a Bad Thing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree about attachment to outcomes being a Bad Thing. But, with all due respect, aren't you attached to an outcome here? After all, a cornerstone of your position was that Pro-life is unacceptable simply because it's non neutral, even if it's most common - and yet there is nothing in policy that says non-neutral names can't be used for titles. I presume you did not intentionally make that up, but you really thought that was policy.But now that you know that is not the case, your position has not changed. You still seem viscerally opposed to using pro-life, regardless of what policy states. If that is not attachment to a certain outcome, what is?

My attachment is to consensus as reflected in policy, and, thus, improving policy to reflect consensus as best as possible. I really believe if we all just followed policy, there would be much less debate and disagreement. I also strive to influence consensus and policy to be more consistent and predictable - to reduce "special cases" as much as is reasonably possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand - it's not that major media outlets consider Pro-life not neutral, it is that major media outlets consider it non-neutral and as a result do not use it as a descriptor. So it typically fails commonname with major media outlets on the numbers (anti-abortion generally wins that one), and it fails it for a reason that should cause us concern if we choose it. Yes, that's enough for me to say we shouldn't use it - and that's when I would call in a third party or the community to mediate between us on the views we take of policy if you were to disagree with me. And I would accept the outcome of the mediation, which is the opposite of what's happened here.

While we're on the topic: You may have noticed in the discussion that prior to my producing the list of the top ten newspapers, there was a discussion with LedRush. S/he complained that the few media outlets I had brought up so far were only a "minority of" media sources. Fine. I thought I now had something to work with - if I show that it's not just a few (although AP, NYT, WP etc. were quite significant I thought) but a majority of major sources, then LedRush will concede at the very least that there's a problem. But what happened when I began listing from the top the editorial policies and patterns of these newspapers? Did LedRush (a) show why my analysis was wrong, (b) concede the point or (c) simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened? (c), of course. This is where some of us feel there are behavioural issues and insufficient good faith.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the outcome of the mediation was "Pro-life" fails on commonname and anti-abortion wins or even "It's a close call but consensus slightly favors anti-abortion", I would accept that. What I'm not accepting is the inventing of a new term "as a means of compromising between opposing points of view". I'm also not accepting the rejection of either term, or any term, on the basis of it being non-neutral independent of its usage in sources. As long as we're doing our best to follow usage in sources, then we're not ignoring policy. But punting on that altogether is not acceptable. I hope ARBCOM recognizes this, but given what they did with Climategate, I'm not very optimistic.

I understand your frustration with behavior such as that. Not sure what to do about it, except to persevere. I suggest the line between (b) and (c) is rather thin. Logic and reason usually, eventually, prevail. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your sympathy ;-) The problem with "anti-abortion" is, alas, wikipolitics. I'd expect all kinds of kicking and screaming if that were ever chosen as the title. Out of curiosity, I have two questions on your reading of POVTITLE on the admissibility of non-neutral titles. It states (with my emphasis) "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name...". To me this means in the current situation that there isn't a common name, as there is no one particular phrase that stands out head and shoulders above the rest in any significant majority of outlets. I don't see POVTITLE as a mechanism for choosing amongst candidates. If there's a reasonable choice, then by default POVTITLE can't apply. How do you understand the words I've italicised? Secondly, POVTITLE states "...this is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources". By my understanding, if we have sources stating that a name is not neutral, that carries weight in addition to their choosing not to use a name. Aren't the pronouncements as well as the usage patterns of RS important?

I think the point you make below is a good one - that ideally we should be able to check titles against real world usage. I think "opposition to abortion" would be a good title for what is now Opposition to legalized abortion. It's pretty well attested enough, and there's nothing real-world I can find to suggest it's not neutral (you can find a thousand cases of the closely related phrase "I am opposed to abortion" in google news searches, for example). I don't really see the need for parallel titles myself; it seemed to be a precondition for many editors. My priority is getting away from titles (and any material in fact) that - to me - break NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That first sentence means the most common name, when there is one, should be used regardless of neutrality. But there are declarations in the paragraph that obviously apply in the general context, not just when there is a most common name, like "the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors" and "true neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." It doesn't make sense for these assertions to only be true with regard to the most commonly used name. So just because there is no obvious most common name in a given situation doesn't mean we should just ignore the rest of POVTITLE, which is what I think you're suggesting. That is, if there are two names that are more commonly used than all others, to be neutral, we should choose one of those based on the principal naming criteria, and without regard to our own judgement regarding neutrality.

For example, if we choose something like "opposition to abortion" over "pro-life" or "anti-abortion", despite the latter two being more common and meeting our criteria better because in our judgement "opposition to abortion" is more neutral, then we're in violation of NPOV! We would be in violation of the neutrality pillar because we would be imposing "our opinions over that of the sources". Isn't that ironic!

You wrote: "My priority is getting away from titles (and any material in fact) that - to me - break NPOV". If you do that, than you would be breaking NPOV! You would be breaking NPOV because, again, you would be imposing your opinion about neutrality over that of the sources. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Most common" is quite clearly not the same as "a significant majority all use", as I think you know perfectly well. As for what to me seems NPOV, of course it's "to me". I don't speak for all wikipedians. I try to argue a case, and as I said above, I accept process that judges whether or not I'm right in my understanding of NPOV. What I don't do is try to re-write policy on the quiet to fit an argument I'm making at ARBCOM to disrupt that process. edit policy statements when I'm involved in debating the same policy. Pretty poor, that, B2C. Pretty poor. Have you done this kind of thing before? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you fell for that, Seva. I thought you had gotten to know me better than that by now, given how much we've been talking. But that goes for WhatamIdoing too, and he's the one who (understandably) misinterpreted what happened, but did not double-check before making wildly out-of-character accusations about me. He should have known better (I've explained there). An apology would be nice...

The point of WP:POVTITLE is we should not even consider neutrality a factor when deciding on a title based on commonality of usage in RS, because imposing our opinion (you yours, me mine) about what is or is not neutral, because if we did that we would not be neutral! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, the timing of your work on "Article Titles" is bad (yes, the reason you give for it is valid), and the appearance it gives is bad, especially to those who are unwilling to AGF or even review it to understand your edit. Would it help if you "admitted" at least that much? I understand your edit was only a clarification and that you only quoted from the prior version of the policy, but others will not assume good faith. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the timing is bad and the appearance is bad to someone who violates AGF policy. That's on them, not on me. The onus is on others to assume good faith, not on me to assume that they won't. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you are correct. (Like GTBacchus said, you are an idealist, and I mean that as a compliment.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, a quick look at the history of the Article Titles policy shows that Born2cycle has been editing it literally for YEARS (August 13, 2006) (that explains why he knows a lot more about it than you or I). I think you are showing a failure to AGF here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On uniting the two articles

As for the suggestion of uniting the two articles, I think this is one possible outcome, although I would be concerned that it would be unwieldy. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see having an "American only" article called Pro-life movement. But, I have a feeling (I'm not familiar with the article's history) that it was attempted but got merged. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 16, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at Mediation Cabal?

Hello, Born2cycle. In your opinion, did "Chase me, ladies" have consensus to close the MedCab discussion about changing "Pro-life"? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I also discussed it with him on his talk page, but he deleted the discussion: see at Hilarious!. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that exchange. I think he sincerely believed he had what he himself characterized as "relatively clear" consensus, but he was wrong. I'm a firm believer in using policy as a major factor in finding consensus -- because policy reflects the consensus of the WP community at large -- but I think that whole aspect was missed here due to a lack of reading and/or understanding applicable policy. I have no idea how much experience he has with title decision making at Wikipedia, and in particular with deciding titles when neutrality is at issue, but in my view he was over his head and went blatantly against policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. You would hope that members of ArbComm would not be in over their heads or go against policy, but, we all have our blind spots. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Title decision-making is an area most editors and even admins don't seem to have much experience with. This is evident in how, when they are involved in title decisions, they use language and arguments that are typical for debates about article content, but don't reflect much if any the concepts and language used at WP:AT (which reflect how consensus has developed for deciding titles). For example, over at the pro-life talk page (whatever it's currently called), Steven, who was apparently influential in the mediation decision, argued that "pro-life" is problematic simply because it has other meanings, giving no consideration at all for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It goes on and on. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It's how I roll, too, but I get some flak for it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether you're suggesting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was followed in this case or not. My point was that it was not. That is, consensus as reflected in policy was ignored by the decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not super-familiar with this case. From what I can tell, you might be right. I was just pointing to a policy to back up your "I'm a firm believer in using policy as a major factor in finding consensus". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom statement

"All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read your statement. It's OUTSTANDING! (How many words is it?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel very strongly about this. I'm sick and tired of people making up rules when we already have perfectly good ones that they simply choose to ignore not for good reason, but so they could make up their own rules.

Just pruned it - but left link to original/long one. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I guess Sarek is saying that unless and until ArbCom agrees to take the case, detailed arguments should be held in abeyance. (But don't worry, I've memorialized it on my talk page). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil comment

My apologies. The comment I was responding to was equally uncivil, and you didn't purge it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anything uncivil, disrespectful or anything like that. Do you guys have a history and so you're seeing something between the lines that I'm not? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Never interacted with the person before in my life, and I think your reading of my statement was wrong. I never delete anything from my talk page, though. Obviously we've got different standards. The whole "got another theory?" comment was rude and obnoxious, and also seemed intentionally irrelevant. I was talking about one thing, and he/she decided to attack your politics. I consider that to be tacky and obnoxious, and saying so is not uncivil. It's honest. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that one. Yeah, that was borderline. But since he posted it twice, identically, to two different people, it didn't seem personal. I read it to just be making a point that he did not realize was irrelevant to what you were saying. I don't think it was relevant to the other guy's point either, but I don't think we can blame anyone too much for misreading like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this section. I apologize to you here as well, GTBacchus. And to Born2 as well, because it's quite clear he doesn't need anyone to argue his points for him! Thanks, guys! I'll try to behave better. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Responded above. I think we're all okay here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parallel" or "symmetrical" article titles

Born2cycle, you're the expert. Where are folks getting the idea that the pro-life/pro-choice article titles have to be symmetrical? Is there such a requirement? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that being symmetrical better meets the consistency WP:CRITERIA, but I think that's a stretch, and is not really the motivation. Perhaps they believe symmetry follows from neutrality, or from an innate sense of fairness. But there is nothing in policy that says pairs of articles about juxtaposed views need to be titled similarly.

As always, we should follow sources... given one name, what do sources that use that name to refer to one topic use to refer to the other topic? Of course, now that they've invented the names we're currently using we can't even consult sources for this (another reason not to invent names).

But the issue of abortion... I don't know of any other issue that is quite so divisive. Well, there is Drug liberalization and Prohibition of drugs (rather than Drug prohibition which would be more symmetrical). There doesn't seem to be any issue about that.

Unfortunately, people often get attached to certain outcomes, and they'll make up justifications - not necessarily disingenuously -- to bolster whatever position they hold. There might be an element of that going on here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, B2c. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another naming discussion you might be interested in

Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania. I have no strong opinion about it, but this pocket of wholly unnecessary pre-disambiguated titling has always seemed out-of-place to me (and I've been referenced a number of times as the reason that township articles in Michigan were not pre-disambiguated in a similar manner). older ≠ wiser 21:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

from WP:TITLECHANGES

Hello, Born2cycle,

from WP:TITLECHANGES:

"Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.[6]"

I have a feeling that this applies in some way to the debate about re-naming "Pro-life movement". My questions to you are: what constitutes "stable for a long time" here? Has "Pro-life movement" been stable for a long time? If not, how does the final sentence apply? Was this section of the AT policy brought up in the recent discussions?

Thanks. I appreciate your well-informed opinions! (And, I apologize for helping sour your working relationship with VsevolodKrolikov. Please feel free to delete any antagonistic or even borderline comments I made on your talk page.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The first part is practically meaningless because of the "and there is no good reason to change it" clause. Anyone favoring a move will argue there is a good reason to change it. This statement should not be construed to mean I favor removing that clause! I think it's exactly right.

However, the stable part is useful. Without knowing what "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" is for this article, I think a strong argument could be made that this should apply here. It's something Arbcom could fall back on, actually. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Climategate rename

Thanks for reopening this topic. "Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎" (etc) has stuck in my craw from the start. It's unfortunate that many people don't recognize that names are what they are. Let's hope this time common sense prevails -- but don't count on it! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence, for your tireless pursuit in bringing consistency to WP:TITLE use across Wikipedia, as well as for your sensible application of WP:NPOV. The debates and Requested Moves you have participated in have doubtlessly contributed to an advancement in the quality of those respective articles. Vietminh (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! This application of neutrality is new to me, but I'm convinced it's the answer to ending a lot of senseless debate, not to mention improving our articles. Now to persuade others! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, your method is the best way to ensure neutrality and if applied by more people would lead to productive debates and consistent application of policy. We ought to trust the assessment of our sources over our own opinions; if problems exist we should evaluate and debate the validity of the source material, not hack out compromises that ignore the information available from them. Vietminh (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WOW. Now there's a keeper:

We ought to trust the assessment of our sources over our own opinions

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what I think the root cause of much of the trouble is? This idea that everything is decided by consensus. On the one hand that's great and accurate, but on the other hand it creates this impression that so much depends on our opinions - when it really should often be, at most, our opinions about what the opinions of the sources are. This is why so many discussions are filled with JDLI arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncivilness

What I said may have been uncivil, but the uncivilness is by no means mine alone. Jakew has accused me of canvassing people (people who had already expressed their opinion on the talk page) whilst simultaneously posting on the NPOV noticeboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Terminology_at_female_genital_mutilation) using arguments that were rejected during the Requested Move to try and frame the debate while at the same time asking for uninvolved editors to come and weigh in. And then, as soon as consensus was very clearly turning against him (after you posted), somehow his comrades who have worked on other circumcision pages with him turn up to weigh in on the debate. Jakew is a complete hypocrite and he has lost all my respect because he will go to any extent to try and manipulate the outcome in his favour. He misquotes, mis-identities and creates the appearance of a question over whether FGM is mutilation in an attempt to keep this debate going on and on, I'm fed up with him and his accusations. Vietminh (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivility on one's part does not justify incivility in return. If you have an issue with his behavior, I suggest you point it out politely and respectively, without becoming uncivil yourself. Intent and tone is really, really easy to misinterpret - just remember that goes both ways. Relax. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya you're right, I have become very frustrated trying to deal with him and I think both him and I are starting to turn this into a personal battle. I'm going to back far way from the debate on the FGM talk page, I think unfortunately it is heading toward another one of those wiki-contrived compromises that ignore the source material. This debate has made me lose faith in the consensus building process as a whole, it seems that around here things get decided by un-examined google results and user-generated notions of neutrality rather than on Wikipedia policy. Vietminh (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Back off on the battle, but don't give up on the war. I think that people want to do "the right thing", which is whatever they think is right for whatever reason in each case, and so want "the rules" to be loose enough so that they can justify whatever it is that they think is "right". The net result is that we don't really have any rules, and people just do whatever they want. That's what I want to change... get some real neutrality going. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've written up a compromise to use FGM/C that includes several conditions for my acceptance of the usage of the term. I think these conditions are fair and are constructed in such a way that they avoid the worst implications and precedents of using FGM/C. If Jakew agrees to them I hope we can put an end to this, it's one of those debates that isn't gonna go anywhere because the two sides hold polar opposite opinions. Unfortunately I can't imagine any scenario where this debate continues and somehow ends up with the current terminology not getting reverted commensurate with an edit war. Hopefully the dynamic will change again in the future and allow a broad consensus (as in the RM) to be achieved.Vietminh (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Are you familiar with this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas? A day after I posted on the climatic research unit email controversy talk page he threatened to accuse me of being and/or having sockpuppet accounts. Has he done this to other people before, or is this something new? Either way, completely out of the blue and utterly unexpected. Vietminh (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright thanks, its weird, he's trying to harass me on my talk page for some reason. Vietminh (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Vietminh

At User_talk:Vietminh You said:

FWIW, I would say that referring to a fellow editor as being egocentric - no matter how overwhelming the evidence supporting such a characterization - is at least uncivil, if not a personal attack. Cheers

However, I did a search for the word "egocentric" and found it once, in the sentence you typed. Did I miss something?--SPhilbrickT 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you missed where Vietminh used the word, which I didn't link, because it did not concern anyone but him, and he knew what I was talking about. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What's your opinion...

...on the WP:ENGVAR ceasefire? I'm looking at the move request at Talk:Crepe right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Crepe again? My opinion is that we follow usage in sources. I stand by my comments in the previous discussion (a month ago!)

Oh, I see someone said something about that. I'll address that there. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you oppose the ENGVAR ceasefire? So you'd support moving everything from British to American spellings when the American spellings are more prevalent online? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't know anything about the ENGVAR ceasefire. But, if I understand your question correctly, yes, I would prefer everything in British spelling to the unpredictable and contentious hodgepodge we have now. A lot of these issues are like the side of the road thing. It doesn't really matter what the rule is - drive on the left or drive on the right - as long as there is only one rule (in a given area) and everyone follows it. Tolerance and decision-making by consensus have their role - on important issues. But on trivial arbitrary matters, like the vast majority of naming issues are in WP, I think having an efficient, consistent and predictable process that supports the real important work (content) rather than get in the way makes the encyclopedia much better all around. This is why I'm involved in naming, and my main work is in advocating what I just explained, both indirectly (my using such arguments in RM discussions, for example) and directly, as I'm doing right now. Cheers! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything in British spelling? That's the one that tends to be less common. You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Liquorice, which was just closed after being treated as an ENGVAR issue. The ENGVAR ceasefire was implemented precisely to be "efficient, consistent and predictable", and I think it's been largely successful. You might want to read about it. It basically boils down to: Don't change names from one variety of English to another, unless the article topic has a natural connection to one variety, e.g., The Beatles should be written in British English, and Aerosmith in American.

When we decided on the ceasefire, it shut down a lot of contention, and let people focus on content. Per that decision, crepe never should have dropped the circumflex, at least as I understand the issue. Cheers to you. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should never have dropped the circumflex, unless enough editors wish it to be that way, right? As I keep saying, we have so many freakin' conflicting rules just about any move proposal can be supported or opposed on reasonable grounds. In this case one can argue based on the ceasefire decision. Or to follow sources. Or Use English (yes, yes, I know crêpe is English, but not everyone agrees, even English sources in French Quebec., and it's not at all clear the it's even the preferred spelling in Britain anyway) So, how do we decide? Which rule takes priority? Why?

I know that following sources is not always perfect or ideal, but it's never truly horrible (after all, it's acceptable enough in society to be the most common use in reliable sources), and it's a relatively consistent and objective arbiter that can be easily and effectively applied in most cases, including this one, and for deciding all issues involving English varieties (of course that would usually favor American usage, which would make many people unhappy). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I don't see the conflicting guidelines as a negative thing - not even a little bit negative. It's not clear that it actually takes energy away from other activities. (It's the same fallacy as, "what will you do with all the money you saved?" That money doesn't actually exist.)

You certainly have taken on a huge project. The ENGVAR agreement alone is supported by a strong consensus of hundreds of people you'd have to convince to change their minds. You might want to familiarize yourself with the reasoning behind it, because it's deeply entrenched, and you'll run into it again and again.

I wouldn't say that thing about, "unless enough editors wish it to be that way". That's not it. A lot to think about. It's not at all clear to me that anything is broken, and in need of fixing. The whole process is very organic, and not at all like a formal logical system, but so is this planet.

We're really both idealists, you know. I'm not sure you see what ideal I'm following; I probably haven't been as clear about it as you have been about yours. It is one that other Wikipedians share, like the people who field questions at WT:IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 23, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation terminology compromise

After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other fora...

Born2cycle, please take this in the spirit that's it's offered, which is a genuinely friendly piece of advice. AN/I is a mean and cutthroat forum. It's not a place where you're likely to get sympathy for your case. If outside admins reply in that thread, it'll likely as not be to bite your head off. I hate that page.

Perhaps one of the village pumps? Perhaps the talk page of some relevant policy or guideline? Eventually, though, it'll come down to what I've told you on ANI. If you're not getting traction in convincing other people, after trying different fora, there is no recourse. You can call that "rule of man" if you like. I just call it reality. I'm a pragmatist, but not so jaded as to forget my ideals. I just respect them enough to give them a fighting chance, and I refrain from bashing them to death against walls.

Some people go to User talk:Jimbo Wales when all else fails. You might learn something there, but Jimbo is a largely non-interventionist God-king. I'd really hate to see you burn out, because you bring good energy to the project. It pains me to see you spending it in ways that aren't going to pay off. Please learn from the mistakes of others, and take a pragmatic approach. Ninety percent of life is choosing one's battles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do GTB, and, with all due respect, I think it's attitudes and approaches like yours - characterized by a lack of understanding much less appreciation for the value of the rule of law -- that keep WP from becoming much better. It's really too bad.

What should happen here is that you would recognize I'm right about your close being premature, that you would reverse it, and presumably, then I and perhaps others could finish the discussion, reach a consensus, and someone else would close it properly. The fact that that is probably not going to happen only illustrates what a huge waste of time this place is. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Born. I sympathize, I honestly do. You'd be surprised how well I understand and appreciate rule of law. I work in systems other than Wikipedia, and I can lawyer with the best of them. I've done paralegal work, and made a difference in real-world cases, by assiduously following formal rules. I also enforce rule of law in my role as an instructor at a university. Hell, I'm a mathematician; you can't get more formally rule-based than that!

I just know that Wikipedia is a different kind of project, that our approach is very counter-intuitive, and that quite counter-intuitively, it works really well once you learn how to surf these waves. It's just a different kind of surfing than you're used to. If you take the leap of faith and try it, you might find it not to be so terrible.

It would make me sad if you decide that Wikipedia is somehow a waste because we don't run according to formal rules. If you decide that, then you dis-empower yourself, whereas if you give our approach a good honest try, you'll empower yourself in ways that I expect will surprise and delight you. It's a different kind of dance, but it's got steps, too, and it goes with the music just fine. It's worth thinking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the rule of man that pervades WP, like it rules on the playground, is intuitive, and immature; - the rule of law is counter-intuitive, and requires adult maturity. It requires a deep understanding of NPOV, and helping clarify and apply the rules accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish you luck, Born2cycle. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Be well - come back refreshed. Dohn joe (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that you feel burnt out by this episode. Let me give you a hint. The goal to long term stability is to leave long-standing titles undisturbed. Crêpe was created on 3 October 2003, and has happily occupied that namespace until it was moved in July 2011. There is nothing un-"recognizabe, natural, concise" with that name. It's now back in its rightful place. I just read your userpage: everything you said was on track. Where you got it wrong – and it isn't even mentioned in your essay – is your idea that English words don't have diacritics. You seem to imply that having them in English Wikipedia is somehow "unnatural". I wish you luck in whatever venture you decide to pursue. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Article title collab ;) Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 03:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RM predictions

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I kind of like the idea. One problem, though. When I stop closing a lot of requests, the backlog tends to get real big. If I'm closing requests, you're apt to claim a conflict of interest. Any ideas how to overcome this problem? I can taste the money already... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not going to bet real money. The reward of learning which one of us is right about this should be enough, for each of us. Just pick the first several (three?) from each day as the ones you'll predict and not close. No cherry picking which ones you want to predict - has to be the first few (to be randomly selected), and the same number each day (if you do 5 the first day do 5 each day, etc.). Try to predict before anyone comments, though of course that won't always be possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Why not? How about User:GTBacchus/RM predictions? I'll start with what's in RM now. I am concerned that we're going to be looking for entirely different morals here. I see no value it having the system be particularly predictable; you've said that you do. I think it's great that these questions remain live and uncertain, but I think I'll probably be good at guessing, simply due to my experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. This all came about because you said, "Your predictions of chaos have never come true, because your theory has never been right.". We're testing my view that we have now is already chaos.

If you don't care, what was the point of your statement? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't call that "chaos". If all you mean by "chaos" is that we won't know ahead of time how discussions will come out, then whatever. If "chaos" means something actually destructive or harmful, then I don't believe it will come about. In particular though, I think that the edits currently being made at the guideline page where this conversation started will have much effect at all. Most people don't read that page, and most edits to guideline pages don't have much effect at all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's chaotic that means it's unpredictable. The decisions are indistinguishable from those made by a coin flip.

The ideal is a situation in which in which titles are determined completely objectively. We can't get there, of course, but that ideal gives us a standard by which to measure changes to the policies in terms of whether they are good or bad changes. If the change brings us closer to the ideal, then it's a good change - if it takes us further then it's a bad change. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You've expressed this "ideal" before, and I've always disagreed. Human judgment is very, very different from a coin flip. It may not be very predictable, but that's because it's based on lots of variables, and lots of people have different knowledge of different factors. It's not random; it's informed. The "ideal" that you espouse is not supported by consensus, and never will be. This is not robot-pedia.

Experimental science is unpredictable. Does that make it chaotic? Mathematical discovery is unpredictable. Does that make it chaotic? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, science and math discovery are chaotic, quite so. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're the best things our species does. If that's chaos, I wouldn't have it any other way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is this: your ideal, that titling decisions should be deterministic and clearly predictable, has never had consensus support. I don't think it ever will, and I think that's a good thing. Do you want to have this argument endlessly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I recognize titling can never be totally deterministic. I'm just saying that any change which makes titles more deterministic, without compromising any primary naming criteria, is a good change, and vice versa. This simply a restatement of the predictability criteria. Are you saying that has no consensus support?

In fact, your latest addition to the guidelines, how is that an improvement in terms of the criteria. My position that it does nothing to help meet any of the criteria, and it makes titles less predictable. If that's not a bad change to policy, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Predictability is not important to me, nor do I feel it's important to the community. You're one of the very, very few people I've ever seen bring it up. Where is the demand for predictability? Determinism is not something I'm going for. I want our guidelines to simply reflect what happens in practice, no more, no less. Any change to the guidelines that more accurately reflects what happens in the field when Wikipedians apply their judgment is a good change. Any change that tries to force the process to be the way some editor wants it to be is a bad change. I trust the community to keep making good, often unpredictable, decisions in the field. I'll keep documenting those decisions, and that is as it should be.

My latest addition is good because it makes the guidelines more accurate. People really do think of "primary topic" both in terms of primary usage, and it terms of primary importance. In more cases, primary usage is the only one that comes up, but when primary importance comes up, it's important. That's reality, so I document it, as accurately as I can. My job is not to try and force anything, but to reflect what happens.

When people try to make "primary topic" simply a matter of counting page hits, it bothers a lot of Wikipedians, because that's not how we think of it. If the guideline seems to suggest that it's all about numbers, then the guideline is inaccurate, misleading and bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Predictability is inherent in Recognizability, Naturalness and Consistency. A measure of how well we're meeting the goals of of Recognizability, Naturalness and Consistency is ... predictability. If you can't predict the outcomes of RM discussions with much accuracy, then that indicates we're not meeting these goals as well as we would be if the outcomes were more predictable.

I want our guidelines to simply reflect what happens in practice, no more, no less. . You continue to ignore the feedback effect of guidelines and policy... as what they say influences "what happens in practice".

The bottom line is that many of our rules, especially in the area of naming, are arbitrary. That is, they are like some traffic laws, like choosing whether to drive on the right or left. It doesn't really matter what we choose, as long we choose one or the other. If the rules reflect the behavior then until everyone is driving on the right or everyone is driving on the left, we'll never have a rule to tell everyone to drive on one side or the other. The alternative is... chaos.

Does it really matter whether primary topic is defined in terms of usage or "importance"? I suggest it's a drive on the left vs drive on the right decision. By not picking one side or the other, or at least not being clear where exceptions can be made (as we make for one-way streets in traffic law), we're not providing guidance on how to settle these arbitrary decisions.

Let me put it this way. If we do our job right with policy and guidelines, then any reasonable person should be able to figure out what the title should be for a given article based on the policy and guidelines, and any two reasonable people should come up with the same answer. Yes, that's an ideal, but ideals are useful for evaluating alternatives... does one choice bring us close to the ideal than the other choice? If so, then that choice is better. How else do we make decisions? On what basis?

You say, "Any change to the guidelines that more accurately reflects what happens in the field when Wikipedians apply their judgment is a good change." When they apply their judgment based on what? Again, consider the drive on left/right analogy. If you polled people living in areas where one side or the other had not yet been settled on you'll get examples of "judgment" favoring each side. So what? So we have some Wikipedians who "judge" that "importance" is more important and others who judge that "usage" in more important. Why? What reasonable argument could be made for either side? I say none, just like no one can argue that drive-on-left is better than drive-on-right, or vice versa. What we can argue is that everyone consistently driving on the left (or on the right) is better than everyone driving on whichever side in their "judgment" is better.

All I'm trying to do is clarify what to do according to consistent rules so that more Wikipedians can spend more time doing something more productive than arguing about whether this or that title should favor the name with more "importance" or the name with more usage.

If you were clear about when to go with importance rather than numbers, and what that means, I wouldn't object. But your addition does neither. It just muddies the already gray waters. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What is their judgment based on? It's based on what human judgment is always based on: lots of things! It's based on that fact that we're wise, living creatures, with real-world experience. When we're doing it right, it's not based in any tiny amount on what guideline pages say. All those pages do is give us information about past decisions. Judgment is based on what's best to do. That can be informed by what was deemed best in the past, but it's always a fresh judgment, based on the whole universe of facts and values.

The driving on sides analogy is so incredibly far from useful that it's difficult to address in any way. If we don't have an agreement about what side to drive on, we've got lots of dead bodies. That's makes the comparison extremely prejudicial, because no real-world harm is caused by titling decisions on Wikipedia. Nobody's arm will be broken, even in cases where we (rightly) have to disagree and hash it out.

Furthermore, a side to drive on is truly arbitrary. There's no a priori reason to choose one or the other. The left works in England; the right works in Spain. On the other hand, an encyclopedia is not an arbitrary thing, and people have lots of expectations about what an encyclopedia should be, and what it should do. Nothing in your driving analogy corresponds to that. How is such an incredibly unrelated case supposed to be an "analogy"?

You say, "If we do our job right with policy and guidelines, then any reasonable person should be able to figure out what the title should be for a given article based on the policy and guidelines, and any two reasonable people should come up with the same answer." Shockingly, I agree. However, that is the case with the newly accurate guideline text! If someone wants to know what to title an article, they'll read the guideline, or they'll consult their common sense, and they'll arrive at the same conclusion: In some cases, it will be obvious because primary usage is the dominant common-sense consideration. In some cases, it will be obvious because primary importance is the dominant common-sense consideration. In some cases, it will not be obvious, and whether they consult the guideline or their common sense, they'll realize there are some non-trivial issues that need hashing out. Non-obvious cases will never be obvious, and any attempt to legislate them into obviousness is misguided, unsupported by consensus, and doomed to fail, because we will always let our better human judgment overrule misguided attempts to make policy overly deterministic.

You say, "If you were clear about when to go with importance rather than numbers, and what that means, I wouldn't object." I don't believe you for one second. However, if this is sincere, then instead of making stupid analogies about arbitrary traffic rules, why not help clarify it based on your observations of how people have made judgments in the field. Where have you made constructive suggestions in this direction? You must have a wealth of these observations, right? Clarify what Wikipedians really do. Help us, instead of taking your typical "we have to be predictable" stance that almost nobody supports, nor ever will.

I mean, for Christ's sake. When do we go with importance rather than numbers? We do it when one of the topics has much greater enduring notability or educational value. Don't know what those things mean? Then get some real-world experience, and come back when you're possessed of clue. In what instance are you confused about this? Name one! When there's no topic that's clearly of much greater enduring notability or educational value, then go with your beloved statistics! How can we be clearer? Fix it, and make it clearer. Don't argue with me, just make a smart, bold edit that will stick. You do know how to do that, don't you?

You say, "You continue to ignore the feedback effect of guidelines and policy... as what they say influences "what happens in practice"." Bull-honky. I don't ignore that; I actively fight against it. People should hold the wording of policy and guideline pages in utter suspicion and contempt. They shouldn't read those pages at all, and when they do, it should be with an eye to fixing them if they're not reflective of human judgment as it occurs. People taking "rules" here to be rules should stop now. Re-read WP:WIARM, please, and start applying it to every single thing you do here.

Seriously, Born2cycle, name one case where you're confused about what we should choose as the primary topic. If you can't come up with one, then the arguing that you're doing is worse than masturbatory, and I hope you'll stop wasting time with it. What's your real-world example of a primary case determination that we've made less clear? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "Is there no limit to your arrogance?" is not cool. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing policy

Please feel free to ignore this completely, or remove it post haste. It's just some stuff I typed, that is addressed to you and to some issues that you've raised here. Insomnia leads to some kinds of writing sometimes.... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing policy is funny stuff. When I'm saying "policy" here, please understand that I mean any policy, guideline, or other page that people are likely to view as some kind of "rule". I'm not trying to distinguish official policy pages from random other red tape. That's my constant refrain, right?: "Don't worry about these rule-distinctions; don't even read those pages. Just improve the encyclopedia. Learn conventions by making mistakes and accepting some direction from those already acclimated to a given area. Blah, blah, blah."

Anyway, I'm looking at WP:RETAIN, and what it looked like a week ago, and what it might look like in a week, and I have to ask, "is it worth it?" You asked whether I was hesitant to edit the page, and I didn't deny that yeah, maybe a little. I didn't talk about it, but that hesitancy is mostly related to my uncertainty that the energy invested in little re-writes like this one is well-spent.

I mean, a certain ideal would hold that we should prioritize the development of a consistent, clear, objective and consensus-approved rule-set, and then stick to it to the letter as possible, always allowing for amendment through some well-documented and transparent process. If we were establishing a government to help us manage things on an island we've all washed up on, then I would almost certainly be super-into doing precisely that. "Let's make good laws, establish rule-of-law, and then start learning from experience and amending those laws in a publicly managed way."

In that setting, establishing such laws would seem almost to be an end in itself, because of the many goods that flow from rule-of-law, and notably, the many evils that it helps keep at bay. Not many arguments are needed to convince the vast majority of modern humans that rule-of-law is a fine way to run civil societies.

Because we value rule-of-law so much in our cities and nations, we invest a lot of energy and expense into maintaining it via the actions of government and the many institutions by which it manifests its influence. On Wikipedia... we have a few people in an office somewhere, and they've sworn off of managing what actually happens on this site at any level of detail, leaving that to the community.

So, yeah... it's different. We could set up a government and try to do the whole civil-society-according-to-that-kind-of-model thing. However, there's no practical way to make this happen. There's essentially no community support for it, and that's for a very good reason. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to author and refine the ideal government for an online community of encyclopedia-builders. And their lawyers. That's the problem.

This site's not for hosting a government, and it shouldn't be, if we can possibly get away without one and still do a reasonably good job.

Furthermore, the more rule-like the guidelines are, the easier it becomes to cavil over the specific language of each rule, trying to argue as to whether or not it should be held as applicable to a given situation. This is not the kind of conversation we want to be encouraging, if we can possibly get by without it.

When there's a question as to which guideline should apply to a situation, our recommended way of proceeding is not to check the text of each guideline and see whether the situation fits exactly what's described there. We recommend instead that, if you want to know which guideline should apply in a given situation, ask around. Alert WikiProjects where people who are likely to know something hang out. See how the community interprets the guidelines, which parts seem possibly controversial, and anything else you care to observe.

If you do this enough, you'll learn a whole lot, and not just about how the community understands dubya-pee-retain and its cronies. You learn a lot about how people make changes around here, what works, and what doesn't. There are ways to change the culture of Wikipedia if such changes are desirable for producing a better Wikipedia. Broadside assaults don't work, either on the institution of choice, nor on any particular set of representatives of it.

Anyway, back to the here and now. WP:RETAIN is changing. There's a reasonable chance that we'll end up with something slightly longer than we had before, that somewhere between 4 and 9 people (a tiny, tiny number) agree they're satisfied with. We may have added protection against a certain form of lawyering that we're trying to discourage: in particular, arguments about whether a spelling-change falls under ENGVAR or COMMONNAME, arguments about whether conventions refer to titles of articles when they only explicitly mention article content, and conversely.

Adding language to be sure that lawyers don't make certain mistakes seems admirable, but I can guarantee you that if we closed one loophole, we just created possibilities for three new ones, and that list will, some proportion of the time, include some possibilities that we will not anticipate. This is unavoidable.

Another way to be sure that lawyers don't make certain mistakes is to do everything we can to discourage lawyering. If we can make it clear: "If you're checking the exact language of the guideline, you've probably already missed the point!" then language that could possibly be lawyered isn't really a concern for us.

Most Wikipedians don't check the rules very often at all. Making them do so would be a massive cultural change that it would take years to effect. These are the people who are not generally affected in any way by edits to the guideline pages, and are blissfully unaware of the molehills that make up the terrain there. That's why people are showing up and saying, "ENGVAR already supports leaving the spelling alone; it's a spelling change!" These people don't care what the guideline says, because they know what it means. That's all they need, 99% of the time.

On Wikipedia, when laws are broken, nobody ever dies, or loses a meal, or gets a black-eye. We do not know, a priori, whether this is a project for which a well defined governing process is necessary. Lots of projects get by without one; the industrial revolution comes to mind, although I think it did blacken some eyes. Cutting a corner on Wikipedia might be fine, when allowing corners like that to be cut in civil society would lead to actual injustices against human beings, who suffer and hunger and die. On Wikipedia, they might lead to titling algorithms being less-than-consistent. Oh, no.

Well-defined and uniformly-enforced rules are useful insofar as they contribute to the ultimate goal of the project: to produce and disseminate a free, freely-editable, accurate and neutral online encyclopedia of all human knowledge, translated into every language. It's not clear to me, a priori that this project needs a government modeled on that of civil society in order to realize its goal.

What is the marginal benefit of the discussion going on at RETAIN? How much time will an hour spent on that discussion save us later? It's not clear that it will save any at all. It might reduce the incidence of one kind of argument, but it will increase the incidence of other types, some of which we're certain will be unexpected. In cases where the guideline is applied by a group of people who are all on the same page about its spirit, then the edits to the guideline didn't save us any time.

In cases where the guideline is going to be cited at the word-by-word level, we probably didn't save any time no matter whether the specific hair in question ends up being split. When people are reading guidelines at the word-by-word level to back up points in an argument, they're going to argue no matter how slickly the rules are written, because that's the frame of mind they're already in at that point.

What we want to do.... more importantly, what we've got the time and the will to do, is to establish an intentionally loose understanding of rules, work things out in the field the way medics do in wartime, and write down any really good ideas that come up. Always treat each rule as the duct-tape and bailing-wire creation that it is, and add tape when you can do it smartly, reducing the total amount of tape that we have to keep buying. There will be a loss of consistency, transparency, and other qualities, as compared with the rule-of-law approach.

However, there's a great increase in efficiency, and the losses incurred are small, and not significantly damaging to the final product. If the way we write titles on articles isn't quite consistent, we're still the damn good online resource that people expect us to be. Whether any particular stylistic rule is uniformly applied across the site doesn't stop us from achieving our overall goal: getting all the information to all the people.

If you want Wikipedians to care more about rules, then you're going to have to establish two things: (1) Running Wikipedia on some model closer to rule-of-law will improve the final product in a meaningful way. (2) The changes that need to be enacted in order to create rule-of-law and change the underlying culture are worth their expense in energy and time, and there is a practical way to implement those changes. Anyway.... those are just some thoughts. I'd be interested to read any response you might have, but no hurry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Like (will respond after giving it due consideration) --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a virtual society. As such, life and health and physical well-being are not at stake, as they would be on your hypothetical deserted island, but it's still a society. A society in which not anything goes because decisions must be made and when they are one way they are not any other way. That is, either an article says something particular about a living person, or it doesn't. An article either has a certain title, or it has a different title. Some of these decisions are arbitrary, some are more substantive, but they have to be made either way. That's why, like in a real civilized society, in order to be civilized here, we have rules (for lack of a better term) regarding how to make these decisions.

It seems self-evident to me that the more our rules correspond to actual behavior, the better. I suppose I can try to explain why that is, but that is ultimately why I focus as much as I do on getting behavior (in particular title choosing) in line with the rules, and the rules in line with what consensus believes the behavior should be.

I believe simple clear rules that accurately reflect consensus regarding what those rules should be is essential to creating an environment in which a high quality encyclopedia can evolve.

That said, I'm very aware of the potential problems with wiki-lawyering and caviling. Believe it or not, I try to avoid that. But when I see a real contradiction between behavior (often as manifested in title decisions) and the rules, I see an opportunity for improvement. I also see an opportunity for improvement when there is ambiguity regarding what the rules say or mean, because ambiguity in the rules is is fuel for caviling. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in titles...

Anyone interested in titles who watches my talk page... how about weighing in on this discussion? Talk:Sega_Genesis_and_Mega_Drive#Requested move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there. I think it was a bad idea to open yet another move discussion for this page. The goal on a page like that is stability, because we've had so much trouble with it in the past. I will oppose anything that involves trying to get people to care the tiniest bit what the title of that article is.

You know what I think makes me a "good" RM person, Born2cycle? It's that I don't care about titles. I recognize them to be not very important, and I recognize that the goal is to allow whatever title changes are going to let us stop worrying about titles and get on with editing articles. I suggest you invest more of your energy in editing articles. When you get these bees in your bonnet about how titles need to be, it's disruptive, and it creates way too much drama over issues that simply don't matter.

Over at Sega, the new title is an attempt to end the fight. The best thing anyone can do is to do their best to let that attempt work. Can you please be on the team, in that effort? I for one would appreciate it very much. Let's not care so much about abstract considerations when it comes to article titles.

Is there an article we could work on together, you and I, Born2cycle? What are you interested in? Let's work on content instead of meta-stuff. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gdanzig

I would, of course, be appalled. It probably should be introduced into your controversy - but Bolzano/Bozen would be even better; see WP:LAME.

If you are looking for somebody less controversial than yourself to make the argument, I may not be the best choice.

I see that there has been a certain amount of hooraw at WT:AT; you may want to consult with User:Enric Naval about that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, and thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose "Gdanzig". According to the consensus being established here, anything but "Gdańzig" makes no sense whatsoever!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 17:43 (UTC)

As little sense as consensus to that. Both sets of extremists are off to the races. I'm out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article titles

Born2cycle, I'm thinking real hard about proposing a topic ban for you, from all discussions related to article titling. I guess I would propose it an AN/I, and then see what people say. My reason would be that you have been acting obsessively with regard to article titles, and the exact relationship between our written guidelines and actual practice.

In titling disputes, you tend to increase the level of disagreement and drama, you tend to prolong disputes rather than helping to end them, and I think you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground in these matters. I'd like to request that you dial it waaaay back. Failing that, I'm not sure what recourse I have other than suggesting a topic ban. If you would stop arguing over titles for a few days, and think about this real hard, and reply to my lengthy post above, then I might not have to do this.

This is not a threat, it's a prediction. If things don't change, we're going to have to topic-ban you. Is that going to be necessary? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was doing things with which no one agreed, this might make some sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It might make sense anyway. If you've got a small legal team backing up your lawyerly ways, that's not really a reason for you to continue. It's likely to happen if you don't do something to address the concerns. Ball's in your court. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do, let me know. Some of his opponents are equally obsessive, and at least B2C has been taking No for an answer most of the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Born2cycle is the only one who keeps coming up on my radar, but you're welcome to throw more logs on the fire, if you think that's appropriate.

Oh, and taking "no" for an answer isn't very admirable when you only do it after forcing people to write a 1000-word version of it. He's persistently not "getting it". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've got no one backing me up as far as I know [edit: besides PMA apparently - what a pleasant surprise!]. I'm just saying that what I'm not doing is making suggestions about how to improve the encyclopedia for which there is no agreement. There might not always be consensus support, and once that's clear I back off.

I don't even understand "the concerns", so do what you think you have to do. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia, and my main area of interest is bringing more titles in line with broad consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines, and bringing the wording of those policies and guideline more in line with broad consensus.

Yeah, so maybe I'm a bit obsessive about that. I don't think that distinguishes me from many other WP editors. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proceeding without understanding "the concerns" is a major problem. I typed a whole lot of words above articulating what those concerns are, but you seem to be putting that on hold while you tendentiously argue about titles and guidelines at Sega. Those priorities are wrong.

"My main area of interest is bringing more titles in line with broad consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines, and bringing the wording of those policies and guidelines more in line with broad consensus." I'd say that's not particularly helpful, because it focuses more energy where less energy should be focused. Worse, you're doing it in a lawyerly way, and discouraging a legalistic approach to Wikipedia is paramount. Those are the concerns. Your energy is misplaced, and your attitude is out-of-line with community norms.

If you could pursue your goal in a way that causes less disruption, that would be awesome, but apparently, you can't. Re-opening the Sega discussion after all the turmoil is really the last straw for me. If you can't see what an incredibly bad idea that was, then I don't think you should be allowed to contribute to titling discussions until you "get it": These matters are not worth engaging in technical debates over, ever. Please stop reading guidelines, and please start working with the community in a more organic way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're upset that I haven't yet replied to your post that starts with, "Please feel free to ignore this completely"? You're mad that I continue to participate in a discussion instead of responding to that message, which you posted after I started that discussion? I don't know, that seems a tad bit obsessive to me, in a narcissistic way actually. I suggest, no request, that you take a break from engaging in anything to do with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. It's going to be difficult if you continue to be disruptive in areas where I work. I'm not going to change my activities on Wikipedia because one lawyer requests that I let him run roughshod over a whole area of the project. I think that your goal of bringing practice and guideline into better synchrony is counter-productive, and not beneficial to the project, because it generates more heat than light. I don't think you've considered the trade-off between real-world benefit and real-world disruption. Have you?

You say: "My main area of interest is bringing more titles in line with broad consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines, and bringing the wording of those policies and guideline more in line with broad consensus." That doesn't improve the encyclopedia, unless it can be done in a non-disruptive way. I don't think that's possible at the level of detail you seem to be going for, because running debates about legislative details in inherently disruptive, and should only be done when absolutely necessary. You've demonstrated no necessity for it in most cases, so you're hurting the project out of a bureaucratic desire to see rules working in the way you feel they should. There's no need for this, and I think you should stop.

I will try to leave you alone, and I will not post further to this page. I'm also not going to take you to AN/I, per ErikHaugen's advice. However, if you're disrupting guideline pages, then I may find it necessary to oppose your efforts. If you're tendentiously turning move requests into debates about exact wordings of guidelines, then I may find it necessary to oppose your efforts. If you're trying to increase the amount of red-tape around here, then I may find it necessary to oppose your efforts. That's just because I don't want you to hurt the project, because I care a lot about this project. It it VITAL that the lawyers never take over, or else Wikipedia dies.

Between this, and a simultaneous comment I'm posting below, I'm done here now. So long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

When you point your finger at someone, three fingers point back at yourself. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I regret the present proposal because I don't expect it to work, any more that the "compromise" of Bolzano/Bozen worked. There really were two separate move proposals of Bozen/Bolzano, on the grounds that "Our name deserves to be first." So here; we can certainly try this proposal, but the last thing to expect is that it will produce quiet; and if it doesn't do that, what is it good for? What does seem to work is an actual discussion of what claims en title has, followed by picking one and using the other where justified. That's how Gdanzig was settled; and at least it is no longer a running joke; but it's not a question (except in the minds of the less useful nationalists) of "enforcing" anything. If it wasn't consensus, it shouldn't be in the guideline - and real consensus doesn't need enforcement. Fake "consensus" always does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• As an admin that patrols many of the user issue boards, I'm leaning towards agreeing here. Now one can argue that I see Born2cycle's name too many times because he contributes towards issues that are not clear; however it is clear that I am seeing this editor involved far too many times for it to be coincidence; at which point logic suggests that it is this editor's involvement that is causing the problems. I think it would be a very good idea if B2C stepped away from naming disputes and other such related issues and concentrated on contributing more to the encyclopedia as a whole. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that WP editors are free to concentrate on whatever areas are of interest to them. Mine happens to be the area of consistency between naming policy/guidelines and actual titles, particularly areas of inconsistency and ambiguity there. Is there a problem with that? So of course my name will pop up more often in that area than, say, someone who chooses to devote most of her time working on article content in a particular area. Please don't be surprised and presume that necessarily means it's a problem.

    If there are any specific inappropriate actions I've taken, please let me know. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

    • "Mine happens to be the area of consistency between naming policy/guidelines and actual titles". That's not an area in which Wikipedia needs help. Only a lawyer would see that as worth the trouble. Your way of "helping" with this is more disruptive than helpful. You're not weighing the disruption against the benefit. So yeah, there's a problem with that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "at which point logic suggests that it is this editor's involvement that is causing the problems" That's pretty vague. For any such "problems", can you please identify them, specify why it's a problem, and how I caused it? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• No offense, but I really think you ought to take a break from Wikipedia for awhile. This naming thing isn't even worth fighting about, you're causing exactly what you're intending on fighting. Wolftengu (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  Why are you spending so much effort on it then, Wolftengu? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Good question, Erik. Anyway, it now appears possible that due to the efforts of several experienced editors a stable title will come out of these discussions, despite attempts to derail these efforts [14]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL! --Born2cycle (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On Soapboxing

This recent and relevant page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism ) does not have anything on it written by you, so perhaps you haven't seen it. There are some explanations I've written there which you might find relevant to that other user-conduct page (and which I think NYyankees51 probably has seen, so I didn't copy them to that other page). V (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil edit

This edit [15] consists primarily of personal attacks. Please strike it and comment on the edits, not the editor.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done [16] Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly keeping with the spirit of the rule, are you?LedRush (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I removed all the personal references and focused entirely on the words that were said without regard to the person. When I originally wrote that you were being incoherent, that was not only uncivil, it was not necessarily correct. I had no way of knowing if you were incoherent (maybe you were just pretending to be?). But what's clear is that the words are incoherent, and that's all I say now. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I say that I don't know whether or not you're a douchbag, but the words in the response above are douchebaggy, that's ok? I don't think so. Thinly veiled personal attacks are still personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No. If you say that you don't know whether or not I'm a douche-bag, and also say my words are douche-baggy, that's not okay. If you only say the words are douche-baggy, without referring to me at all, that is okay. Make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not.LedRush (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Anyway, I apologize again for the initial wording which was out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this makes things clearer. I've had exactly the same thing from this user here, and his above comment about not understanding the difference between criticising someone's words and criticising the person themselves, at last makes it a whole lot clearer to me what on earth he was on about. I criticised stuff he said, and he evidently thinks that constitutes a personal attack. So I really wouldn't worry about it too much. Miremare 17:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Title rotation

Hi, would like to support the proposal, but could you amend the wording to remove "pledge to" so that a support for the initial move is automatically a support for the concept of rotation rather than just a pledge to support another move in a year? Otherwise I can see this all starting again in a year's time when it becomes time to move. A discussion shouldn't even be necessary when the year is up if we can get a concensus for rotation now, it should just be an automatic thing every 1 Nov. In fact I think a discussion every year would be completely undesirable - I don't want it to be a move with the agreement of a move discussion in a year's time, only for those who like the title as it is to change their minds about the whole idea next year. And I can really see that happening, even without my cynic's hat on. Cheers, Miremare 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A pledge is a solemn promise. What I wanted to do was get people to pledge that they would not oppose an automatic moving of the article every Nov 1, not to have a discussion every year. But I removed the pledge wording to eliminate any confusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what you mean, but the less scope for interpretation the better IMO. Cheers, Miremare 19:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 16, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)