Potentially important: If I missed some consensus discussion by which it was determined that the category namespace does in fact have t comply with things like STRONGNAT/ENGVAR, please point me at it; I pre-concede that I'm absent from CfD sometimes for long stretches. Obviously, this namespace complies with MoS's general rules, but the *VAR/*RETAIN types of provisions all are highly specific in their wording to being about article content disputes. If we are certain they apply here, their wording needs to be tweaked a little (and this is good time to approach that, since WT:MOS has a thread open near the top of it about centralizing and cross-normalizing all those provision, which have been slowly advice-forking over the last several years in unconstructive ways. (Please ping me on replies to this.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It makes sense for ENGVAR issues to apply. So even if no-one has documented it previously, IAR. I'd enjoy seeing the feathers fly if we had a Category titled "International Cricket organizations". -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
the words as written can mean different things to different people... which you repeat, without ever clarifying what you read the words to mean. Your point seems to be instead that you can interpret them as you like, without ever pinning down any coherent meaning to them, and that you should be free to berate editors who read them at face value ... and still whine when your non-textual reading is challenged.
As for the above meta-dispute, which is important, I concur with
Good Olfactory that "this is what happens when users adhere strictly to the speedy criteria for the sake of the rules rather than for the reasons the criteria exist"
; that "interpretations of the criteria as they current stand may validly vary from editor to editor. [Some] may see them as very precise and inflexible, but not all editors do see them in this way"
' and that we should "encourage a more flexible interpretation of the criteria"
. I disagree with
BrownHairedGirl (despite frequently agreement on much else) that raising these issues here is disruptive in any way, and also draw attention to
WP:CONSENSUS: It may form anywhere, and is not required to form at the time or venue that some parties[s] preferred that it were discussed. I think we're all aware that much of CfD procedure is hashed out "off-topic" in these listings, not on its rather disused talk page. RfCs are only needed when a) consensus isn't being achieved through other channels, and b) the entire community needs to be asked for input to resolve it (or to figure out how to resolve it). Given that this listing is
WP:SNOWBALLing easily in favor of the nomination, and that multiple editors believe it should have been speedied, it essentially is not possible that disruption is happening (here, now); this is called clear and expedient resolution (at least of the small issue if not the large one). Finally, "interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] viuew to mean something other than the words they say"
is not what anyone has proposed; rather, that they be interpreted like all other policy/process, through the lens of
WP:COMMONSENSE,
WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the interplay between
WP:PROCESS and
WP:IAR, and expedient
WP:DR; this process does not exist for it's own sake, it only exists to facilitate getting on with it. CfD is far too time-consuming, hand-wringing, and procedural. A strong argument can be made that it has slide into contravention of the principles of
WP:5P (at "mercilessly edited"), the
WP:BOLD guideline, and the policy of
WP:EDITING (no one has to ask permission first). We're supposed to just edit as we think is best without agonizing over whether any change will result in imperfection. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] view to mean something other than the words they say"is exactly what GO was advocating at CFD 2016 February 10#Category:MediaCorp. In that case, GO threw all their toys out of the pram because editors blocked a move which didn't meet the criterion chosen. There was no ambiguity: even GO made no attempt at all to claim that the category in question actually met C2D. GO's argument was simply that the move seemed like an uncontroversial good idea ... but that's not what any of the speedy criteria permit. All of the speedy criteria are about precisely-defined technical circumstances, which simply didn't apply. GO writes above that
I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.
this should have been discussed on a User talk page
|
---|
|
Comment: I haven't read the entire comments here, so am not sure if I am supporting or opposing anything, but what I know is that for uniformity sake, it is best if all states are in the form stateName State. Many of these states have different notable and popular meanings. Osun and Ogun are gods, Lagos is ambiguous, etc. But when you say Osun State, Ogun State, Lagos State, etc. It is exactly clear what you mean. The same should apply for the categories. Darreg ( talk) 20:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Potentially important: If I missed some consensus discussion by which it was determined that the category namespace does in fact have t comply with things like STRONGNAT/ENGVAR, please point me at it; I pre-concede that I'm absent from CfD sometimes for long stretches. Obviously, this namespace complies with MoS's general rules, but the *VAR/*RETAIN types of provisions all are highly specific in their wording to being about article content disputes. If we are certain they apply here, their wording needs to be tweaked a little (and this is good time to approach that, since WT:MOS has a thread open near the top of it about centralizing and cross-normalizing all those provision, which have been slowly advice-forking over the last several years in unconstructive ways. (Please ping me on replies to this.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It makes sense for ENGVAR issues to apply. So even if no-one has documented it previously, IAR. I'd enjoy seeing the feathers fly if we had a Category titled "International Cricket organizations". -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
the words as written can mean different things to different people... which you repeat, without ever clarifying what you read the words to mean. Your point seems to be instead that you can interpret them as you like, without ever pinning down any coherent meaning to them, and that you should be free to berate editors who read them at face value ... and still whine when your non-textual reading is challenged.
As for the above meta-dispute, which is important, I concur with
Good Olfactory that "this is what happens when users adhere strictly to the speedy criteria for the sake of the rules rather than for the reasons the criteria exist"
; that "interpretations of the criteria as they current stand may validly vary from editor to editor. [Some] may see them as very precise and inflexible, but not all editors do see them in this way"
' and that we should "encourage a more flexible interpretation of the criteria"
. I disagree with
BrownHairedGirl (despite frequently agreement on much else) that raising these issues here is disruptive in any way, and also draw attention to
WP:CONSENSUS: It may form anywhere, and is not required to form at the time or venue that some parties[s] preferred that it were discussed. I think we're all aware that much of CfD procedure is hashed out "off-topic" in these listings, not on its rather disused talk page. RfCs are only needed when a) consensus isn't being achieved through other channels, and b) the entire community needs to be asked for input to resolve it (or to figure out how to resolve it). Given that this listing is
WP:SNOWBALLing easily in favor of the nomination, and that multiple editors believe it should have been speedied, it essentially is not possible that disruption is happening (here, now); this is called clear and expedient resolution (at least of the small issue if not the large one). Finally, "interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] viuew to mean something other than the words they say"
is not what anyone has proposed; rather, that they be interpreted like all other policy/process, through the lens of
WP:COMMONSENSE,
WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the interplay between
WP:PROCESS and
WP:IAR, and expedient
WP:DR; this process does not exist for it's own sake, it only exists to facilitate getting on with it. CfD is far too time-consuming, hand-wringing, and procedural. A strong argument can be made that it has slide into contravention of the principles of
WP:5P (at "mercilessly edited"), the
WP:BOLD guideline, and the policy of
WP:EDITING (no one has to ask permission first). We're supposed to just edit as we think is best without agonizing over whether any change will result in imperfection. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] view to mean something other than the words they say"is exactly what GO was advocating at CFD 2016 February 10#Category:MediaCorp. In that case, GO threw all their toys out of the pram because editors blocked a move which didn't meet the criterion chosen. There was no ambiguity: even GO made no attempt at all to claim that the category in question actually met C2D. GO's argument was simply that the move seemed like an uncontroversial good idea ... but that's not what any of the speedy criteria permit. All of the speedy criteria are about precisely-defined technical circumstances, which simply didn't apply. GO writes above that
I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.
this should have been discussed on a User talk page
|
---|
|
Comment: I haven't read the entire comments here, so am not sure if I am supporting or opposing anything, but what I know is that for uniformity sake, it is best if all states are in the form stateName State. Many of these states have different notable and popular meanings. Osun and Ogun are gods, Lagos is ambiguous, etc. But when you say Osun State, Ogun State, Lagos State, etc. It is exactly clear what you mean. The same should apply for the categories. Darreg ( talk) 20:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)