This page was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2018. The result of the discussion was Userfy. |
Politics: Gun politics NA‑class | ||||||||||
|
Note: At this time the essay was moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use to Wikipedia:Gun use by Dlthewave. – dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
To editor Dlthewave: Why did you move this essay? I don't think you have consensus to move this screed into WP namespace. Please revert. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"restored to original location at User:Felsic2/Gun use pursuant to consensus and move protected."You already know this so I don't see why you'd do this knowing there's disagreement. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Let us look at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 7 the deletion eview, the only place that I know of where moving this page to project space was discussed by a significant group of editors.
Dlthewave, opening
the deletion review, said I would have moved it to essay space myself if somebody else had not done it.
Jclemens said Sounds like it should probably be put back in the original location, maybe move protected if it's a sock target
.
Hut 8.5 said, We can restore it to userspace or potentially to some other title in project space
.
RoySmith said I have no particular opinion about whether it should stay in the original userspace, or be moved to WP space, but given that it seems to be a target for socks/vandals, some sort of (less than full) protection seems like a good idea.
I said whether it should be moved and where, represent normal editorial decisions
. The others who commented did not directly refer to a move to project space or away from it. I find it hard to see a clear consensus that this belongs in user rather than project space.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
01:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This opinion essay gets a lot of things wrong. It suggests that the only legitimate reason for rejecting something from a firearms article is due to violations of guidelines and policy. It was previously discussed here [ [1]]. Pinging the involved editors @ RAF910:, @ Felsic2:, @ Mike Searson:, @ Mike Searson:, @ Thomas.W:, @ Miguel Escopeta:, @ Thewellman:. I would support MfD. Alternatively, if we are going to keep it then I think we need to correct many of the issues in the essay. At that point it might as well be the Firearms project page recommendations... which would make this redundant and thus prime to suggest for deletion. Springee ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
POV-pushers' how-to-guide. I don't see how it is Firearm's project page recommendation, either (?). The latter ( WP:GUNS) is more of a MOS guide, while this essay is different. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. - I changed the subject header to be more neutral.
Many essays take positions that do not command wide support. Some are polarizing, some are endorsed only by a comparatively small group of editors, or may remain primarily a single editor's view. I am by no means fully persuaded by this essay myself. However, nominating an essay for deletion because one disagrees with its arguments, and considers them "wrong" is not the usual response, and is, in my view, not supported by the deletion policy. Instead the usual -- and IMO better -- response is to marshal opposing arguments, perhaps on the essay's talk page or perhaps in a countervailing essay. I would hope that those who feel that this essay "gets it wrong" would follow that approach. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The title "Gun use" is rather broad, and does not clearly indicate he subject matter of this essay. Its major point is to advocate that, in articles about specific types of firearms, violence, particularity criminal violence, which employed those firearms, should be mentioned. I therefore suggest a more specific title, such as: "Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles". DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Now that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use has concluded as "userfy back to User:Felsic2/Gun use" (courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos), this discussion seems moot. Additionally, taking WP:USERESSAY into account, it seems that this page is best left at the title which the author chose. Anyone is free to unilaterally overturn my close and reopen this discussion within one month of the closure date if they disagree. ( non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gun use →
Wikipedia:Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles – This essay is not about how gun use in general should be discussed in Wikipedia articles. It is very specifically about whether incidents of gun violence, particularly criminal violence, should be mentioned in articles about particular types of guns, advocating in favor of such mention. The title should reflect that. As with many essays, the proposed title is in the imperative to indicate the position for which the essay advocates.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. --
Dane
talk
05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
never develop further than an essay. Why should it? Why would anyone want it to? An essay attempts to persuade people to do things in a particular way. It is not an embryo guideline, or should not be. It also need not have wide support. There is nothing wrong in a Wikipedia editor posting an opinion on how we should or should not edit articles. I do not see how this essay advises us to
breech core policies and general guidelines. There is nothing in core policies forbidding the mention of verifiable violent incidents in articles about gun types. Nor is there anything requiring such mentions. It is purely a matter of editorial judgement, and the author of this essay hoped to influence that judgement. That hope may well be vain. But the author can still make what case s/he can for it. Disagreeing with an essay is not a valid reason to delete it. It is a valid reason to write a counter essay giving the count-arguments. If these are as persuasive as you believe, then the original essay will have no significant effect. An essay has no force unless it persuades people. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space.Exactly five editors in the DRV mentioned its final location. Of those, exactly ONE felt that in should be in userspace and nowhere else. One said that it should wind up in project space, and that s/he would have moved it there had the sock not done so. The other three (including you, and including myself) said or implied that it might properly end up in either location. All 5 comments are quoted above in full, on this page. I cannot construe them as a consensus that the essay was to be put, and to remain, in userspace only. Nor was my move to project space unilateral. It had the support of several other editors, as can be seen above on this page, and in my view was supported by policy as well. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon...
Demonize gun use...
Guns beget violenceNone of these things are even hinted at in this essay. – dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest an alternate titlePlease see my !vote above. – dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
As a native speaker of English, my approach to grammar is largely, I know what sounds right. I never studied formal grammar until I (nominally) learned Spanish, and (sort of) learned how to convey subtleties of meaning via the various conjugations. With that disclaimer, I'll dive with wild abandon into a grammatical analysis of how this should be named.
The essay is stating an opinion, and trying to persuade people to do things a certain way. Opinions are conveyed with subjunctive mood. Commands are conveyed with imperative mood. I'm not 100% sure which applies here. Is the essay expressing the author's opinion (I think gun articles should talk about crimes), or is it expressing a desire that other people also do it that way (You should talk about crimes in gun articles), or commanding them to do so (Talk about crimes in gun articles)? I don't know the answer, but it seems like we need to answer that before we can intelligently discuss a title.
Another issue is that titles need to be reasonably short. All of the suggestions I've seen fail on this score. Of the three examples in the previous paragraph, the last is certainly the shortest. And, I think the use of the imperative also matches the intent of the author. But, we can tighten it up a bit (Mention crimes in gun articles). That's short enough that it's easy to remember, and, I think, adequately describes the content. It's also got the nice property that it's easy to invert, so when somebody writes the rebuttal, the title will be obvious: Don't mention crimes in gun articles.
I'd love to have input from people with a better grasp of formal grammar. But, please, let's try to talk about the grammar, and not about whether you agree with the essay or not. The job of a title is to let the reader judge whether the content will be of interest to them. If the content of the essay makes you angry, having the title make you angry means the title has done it's job well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
4 editors, myself
User:RAF910,
User:Springee,
User:Toddy1, and
User:72bikers believe that this page should be deleted. Therefore I have started the process. Please see...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use.--
RAF910 (
talk)
20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2018. The result of the discussion was Userfy. |
Politics: Gun politics NA‑class | ||||||||||
|
Note: At this time the essay was moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use to Wikipedia:Gun use by Dlthewave. – dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
To editor Dlthewave: Why did you move this essay? I don't think you have consensus to move this screed into WP namespace. Please revert. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"restored to original location at User:Felsic2/Gun use pursuant to consensus and move protected."You already know this so I don't see why you'd do this knowing there's disagreement. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Let us look at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 7 the deletion eview, the only place that I know of where moving this page to project space was discussed by a significant group of editors.
Dlthewave, opening
the deletion review, said I would have moved it to essay space myself if somebody else had not done it.
Jclemens said Sounds like it should probably be put back in the original location, maybe move protected if it's a sock target
.
Hut 8.5 said, We can restore it to userspace or potentially to some other title in project space
.
RoySmith said I have no particular opinion about whether it should stay in the original userspace, or be moved to WP space, but given that it seems to be a target for socks/vandals, some sort of (less than full) protection seems like a good idea.
I said whether it should be moved and where, represent normal editorial decisions
. The others who commented did not directly refer to a move to project space or away from it. I find it hard to see a clear consensus that this belongs in user rather than project space.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs
01:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This opinion essay gets a lot of things wrong. It suggests that the only legitimate reason for rejecting something from a firearms article is due to violations of guidelines and policy. It was previously discussed here [ [1]]. Pinging the involved editors @ RAF910:, @ Felsic2:, @ Mike Searson:, @ Mike Searson:, @ Thomas.W:, @ Miguel Escopeta:, @ Thewellman:. I would support MfD. Alternatively, if we are going to keep it then I think we need to correct many of the issues in the essay. At that point it might as well be the Firearms project page recommendations... which would make this redundant and thus prime to suggest for deletion. Springee ( talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
POV-pushers' how-to-guide. I don't see how it is Firearm's project page recommendation, either (?). The latter ( WP:GUNS) is more of a MOS guide, while this essay is different. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. - I changed the subject header to be more neutral.
Many essays take positions that do not command wide support. Some are polarizing, some are endorsed only by a comparatively small group of editors, or may remain primarily a single editor's view. I am by no means fully persuaded by this essay myself. However, nominating an essay for deletion because one disagrees with its arguments, and considers them "wrong" is not the usual response, and is, in my view, not supported by the deletion policy. Instead the usual -- and IMO better -- response is to marshal opposing arguments, perhaps on the essay's talk page or perhaps in a countervailing essay. I would hope that those who feel that this essay "gets it wrong" would follow that approach. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The title "Gun use" is rather broad, and does not clearly indicate he subject matter of this essay. Its major point is to advocate that, in articles about specific types of firearms, violence, particularity criminal violence, which employed those firearms, should be mentioned. I therefore suggest a more specific title, such as: "Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles". DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Now that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use has concluded as "userfy back to User:Felsic2/Gun use" (courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos), this discussion seems moot. Additionally, taking WP:USERESSAY into account, it seems that this page is best left at the title which the author chose. Anyone is free to unilaterally overturn my close and reopen this discussion within one month of the closure date if they disagree. ( non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Gun use →
Wikipedia:Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles – This essay is not about how gun use in general should be discussed in Wikipedia articles. It is very specifically about whether incidents of gun violence, particularly criminal violence, should be mentioned in articles about particular types of guns, advocating in favor of such mention. The title should reflect that. As with many essays, the proposed title is in the imperative to indicate the position for which the essay advocates.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. --
Dane
talk
05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
never develop further than an essay. Why should it? Why would anyone want it to? An essay attempts to persuade people to do things in a particular way. It is not an embryo guideline, or should not be. It also need not have wide support. There is nothing wrong in a Wikipedia editor posting an opinion on how we should or should not edit articles. I do not see how this essay advises us to
breech core policies and general guidelines. There is nothing in core policies forbidding the mention of verifiable violent incidents in articles about gun types. Nor is there anything requiring such mentions. It is purely a matter of editorial judgement, and the author of this essay hoped to influence that judgement. That hope may well be vain. But the author can still make what case s/he can for it. Disagreeing with an essay is not a valid reason to delete it. It is a valid reason to write a counter essay giving the count-arguments. If these are as persuasive as you believe, then the original essay will have no significant effect. An essay has no force unless it persuades people. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space.Exactly five editors in the DRV mentioned its final location. Of those, exactly ONE felt that in should be in userspace and nowhere else. One said that it should wind up in project space, and that s/he would have moved it there had the sock not done so. The other three (including you, and including myself) said or implied that it might properly end up in either location. All 5 comments are quoted above in full, on this page. I cannot construe them as a consensus that the essay was to be put, and to remain, in userspace only. Nor was my move to project space unilateral. It had the support of several other editors, as can be seen above on this page, and in my view was supported by policy as well. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon...
Demonize gun use...
Guns beget violenceNone of these things are even hinted at in this essay. – dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest an alternate titlePlease see my !vote above. – dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
As a native speaker of English, my approach to grammar is largely, I know what sounds right. I never studied formal grammar until I (nominally) learned Spanish, and (sort of) learned how to convey subtleties of meaning via the various conjugations. With that disclaimer, I'll dive with wild abandon into a grammatical analysis of how this should be named.
The essay is stating an opinion, and trying to persuade people to do things a certain way. Opinions are conveyed with subjunctive mood. Commands are conveyed with imperative mood. I'm not 100% sure which applies here. Is the essay expressing the author's opinion (I think gun articles should talk about crimes), or is it expressing a desire that other people also do it that way (You should talk about crimes in gun articles), or commanding them to do so (Talk about crimes in gun articles)? I don't know the answer, but it seems like we need to answer that before we can intelligently discuss a title.
Another issue is that titles need to be reasonably short. All of the suggestions I've seen fail on this score. Of the three examples in the previous paragraph, the last is certainly the shortest. And, I think the use of the imperative also matches the intent of the author. But, we can tighten it up a bit (Mention crimes in gun articles). That's short enough that it's easy to remember, and, I think, adequately describes the content. It's also got the nice property that it's easy to invert, so when somebody writes the rebuttal, the title will be obvious: Don't mention crimes in gun articles.
I'd love to have input from people with a better grasp of formal grammar. But, please, let's try to talk about the grammar, and not about whether you agree with the essay or not. The job of a title is to let the reader judge whether the content will be of interest to them. If the content of the essay makes you angry, having the title make you angry means the title has done it's job well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
4 editors, myself
User:RAF910,
User:Springee,
User:Toddy1, and
User:72bikers believe that this page should be deleted. Therefore I have started the process. Please see...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use.--
RAF910 (
talk)
20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)