User talk:Born2cycle

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Born2cycle Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• There are now naming conventions for individual states?   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)][reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• Due to the lack of participation, I suggest a new proposal would be best. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

??? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]