- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was userfy. The only "delete" and most "keep" opinions agree with userfying, and out of those who opined to "keep", there seems to be no objection to userfication as a viable solution (except from the author). I am however not going to userfy-without-redirect as that would orphan a very large number of links found in talkpage discussions and I think keeping a project>user redirect is less harmful than creating potential confusion in the histories of hundreds of discussions. Take it to RfD (linking to this close) if you feel so strongly about it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Concision razor
- Wikipedia:Concision razor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect.
The specific primary problem with both Wikipedia:Concision razor and the related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation is proposing and promoting in WP space, the confusion of WP:PRECISION with CONCISION, that the shortest article title must always be applied which interprets WP:AT policy against what WP:AT actually says. Same secondary problems as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is the creator of WP:Concision razor and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day). WP:CONCISE is part of our article naming, so why isn't an essay supporting its use allowed? Calidum Talk To Me 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- This copy pasting of personalizing comment from Calidum from the other MFD shouldn't detract from the discussion. The original case Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule was made by other editors, and this has also been pointed out. The MFD should be considered on its merits, someone else can state these better than I. I've reworded it by the way. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- (EC) @
Calidum: Actually, the nominator said per "Same problems as previous case" and then linked to it; it provides a substantial list of issues. Most (not quite all) of them appear to be applicable here. I
would rathersee the nom naming some specific reasons here, but characterizing this as a personality dispute is incorrect. Proof: see consensus for userspacing at the essay's own talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)- The "consensus" to which you refer is among a small group of editors with whom I have a history of disagreements that is ultimately philosophical in nature. That's hardly objective or representative of the community at large. What's critical in these mFd's are the opinions of editors uninvolved in these title disputes. You are not among them, of course, and neither is In ictu oculi, Smokey Joe, Omnedon, Huwman, that remarkably-informed-on-esoteric-WP-matters IP I can't memorize, and a couple of others. -- В²C ☎ 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- User-space it, without redirect, and delete any shortcuts, per
WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays]]." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.
[1] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
- The author very [2] strongly [3] insists [4] on tagging it as a {{ guidance essay}} (previously a {{ supplement}}), yet there is no support anywhere for it to be considered acceptable guidance material; its own talk page shows that it does not have such acceptance. Its very presence in project-space is problematic.
- The title misleadingly implies it is some kind of policy or other rule, for which it is too easily and often mistaken, and its author cites it that way, but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
- Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Concision razor". Instead, it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall of why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
- The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g. here).
- About two-thirds of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
- Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{ Failed}}. It already was once, [5] but Born2cycle reverted it. Someone else's proposal for essentially the same idea was also previously rejected, at the pre-Born2cycle WP:Unnecessary disambiguation
- It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at the current version of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
- Keep. I think if an essay proffers some interpretation of our rules, and it's a reasonable interpretation and stated with sufficient cogency it's OK. Yes a call for complete negation of important rules might not be appropriate. This essay is nowhere near that, it accepts the Five Virtues of article titles and just offers the opinion that one of them is more important.
- It doesn't make its point very well. I guess it's trying to say that concision is more important than the other four virtues outlined at WP:CRITERIA, but it shys away from really saying that, dealing with the implications of saying that, or offering any concrete guidance on how to apply it. It also doesn't offer any argument or reason for particularly valorizing concision as opposed to, say, recognizability. So it's not a very good or useful essay I don't think. (I don't agree with the above poster that presenting and then demolishing arguments is not OK -- it's a common and acceptable rhetorical device -- but I do agree that I can't see many people saying "per WP:RAZOR" since there's no "per" there really.)
- Still, I dunno. Maybe people have been making the argument "pfft, concision, it's in the rule but we really don't pay much attention to that as a matter of practice" and we need a counter to that, or something. Not a great essay but not madness or lunacy or illiteracy, and it might get improved. It's my opinion that, although I don't really like it, that it lies north of the line "of sufficient quality to exist" so let it lie I guess. If not, then userfy without prejudice.
Herostratus (
talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-
WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but
straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, that's different maybe. However, the only changes that need to stick are those that strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred". Any changes that make the reader more likely to walk away from the essay thinking "Wow, that was convincing, and I now do believe that, in a title, conciseness is more important than topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth" would be welcome, you'd think, and if the original author is being recalcitrant over changes of that nature then that's odd but yes I guess that would be a problem.
- @
Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-
WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but
straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all.
Herostratus (
talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "
WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in
WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like
WP:Don't template the regulars and
WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in
WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an
Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see
WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.)
WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that would be the case if this were such an "essay ... actually intended to say that", but it's not a community-created summary of a major viewpoint on these matters that actually presents a rationale for why conciseness is important within the context of the other CRITERIA and should be interpreted as trumping other concerns like the inertia you mention or topical naming conventions. It's one user's jealously guarded opinion piece laying out straw man arguments for why actual WP practice should be ignored. That's why I'm arguing for user-spacing, not deletion. If I wrote an essay on why official names of things should always, always be used, and to hell with all other concerns, that should be user-spaced as contrarian personal venting, and would be a very different page from one we all wrote together on why official names should be given a due amount of concern when balancing the CRITERIA. Honestly, such an essay might well be needed, because too many people think that any other concern can trump official names and this isn't really true. And maybe an essay on balancing conciseness with other CRITERIA is needed, too, but it's not this essay and the page's author won't let anyone try to steer it in that direction. PS: I wasn't saying it would be impossible to create a NOAADD, I'm suggesting rather that it would be rapidly user-spaced for the same reasons at issue here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see
WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.)
WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "
WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in
WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like
WP:Don't template the regulars and
WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in
WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an
Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all.
Herostratus (
talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an essay. If you don't think that it belongs in projectspace, request that it be moved to the author's userspace, but there's no need to get rid of an essay entirely just because of its content. Nyttend ( talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy. Essays are fine, but this one belongs in userspace. Omnedon ( talk) 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per Herostratus. I am accused of "OWNing" the essay. I dispute that claim. I only ask what Herostratus points out should happen: "if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it". As I've said many times, if you disagree with [the main thrust] of an essay, then write a different essay. I welcome all criticisms and improvements to the essay, as long as they " strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred." It is not my intent, and never has been, to promote conciseness as a more important criterion. If anything, it is the least important, having a role only when the two titles in question meet the other criteria equally well. In fact, that's the point! -- В²C ☎ 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well if it's not especially important I don't get what you're trying to say. If your point devolves to "I like it that conciseness is one of the title criteria, and if it wasn't I would campaign to make it one" that's fine but it is probably best expressed in userspace because it's not something that people will will invoke much.
- So then let me ask you this: could we have four other essays -- WP:Recognizability razor ("If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than recognizability equally well, then the more recognizable one is preferred"), WP:Naturalness razor, WP:Precision razor, and WP:Consistency razor? This follows from "It is not my intent... to promote conciseness as a more important criterion", right? So yes or no? If yes, then I maybe your point is "When a title meets four of the WP:CRITERIA more or less equally well, but not a fifth, then rather than saying 'enh, only one out of five, let's just leave it as it was' we should say 'well, even with just one out five, we should change the title'" -- but that's a different essay. If your answer is no (that is, conciseness is particularly important so the concision razor is a special thing, which I gather you're not trying to say) then you should make that clear, and also address whether conciseness should tend to trump the topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth, and ideally explain why.
- So it's not very clear or useful. And since it's not clear or useful it needs improvement and until then is very unlikely to be invoked much in arguments, so it arguably belongs in userspace at least for now. I'm liberal about the criteria for what gets to be in wikispace so I say "enh, keep" but others might not be so and they'd have a point.
- So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank?
Herostratus (
talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?
Really, this is just an expansion on WP:CRITERIA that applies in certain types of cases. Or, rather, it's an explication on how to assess CRITERIA in certain cases, if you will.
As to your last question, what is the answer to that question with respect to any WP space essay? It's the same here. Being in WP space conveys that at least a number of editors agree with what it says, or at least agree that it doesn't contradict policy. If it's in my user space, the 5-10 editors who don't like it will dismiss as being a "user space essay" expressing only my opinion which contradicts policy (without ever explaining how it contracts policy, just as they are unable to do here). That will mean fewer will read it and give it the thought I believe it deserves. I hope I've addressed you concerns and questions. Let me know if you have any others. -- В²C ☎ 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?
- So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank?
Herostratus (
talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. If changes are needed, propose a specific change and seek consensus for it on the essay's talk page. bd2412 T 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not quite as mischevious as the page being discussed above, but that's only because this is more oblique and thus less immediately understandable. Still, it's the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. Perfectly OK in user space of course, just as would be an essay of mine explaining why I thoroughly disagree with it. (I could of course argue that my position represents outr true policy, but in practice this sort of thing in WP space just causes confusion.) DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy or delete if the owner doesn't want it. Essentially a disputed single author essay. As well discussed on the talk page and here, this is an OWNed, single users opinion, failing as an essay because all contained logic is flawed. This is not an essay supporting WP:CONCISE, but twisted twisting of policy much more disruptive than helpful to editors who may take it at face value, assuming that usual credance afforded to project space pages.
- Attempts by others to assist the OWNer in comprehensible expression should not be taken as endorsement of the authors opinions. In principle, other editors could improve it, but no other editor is seriously interested in doing so, and in userspace it can better say what it says without implied community acceptance.
- I agree with Herostratus's comments on the talk page, that it could be made more reasonable, but as it stands, it is a poor attempt at what is an acceptable essay, it is a single author opinion conflated with layers of fallacious logic.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy applies. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again you're holding this essay to a standard no other essays are expected to meet. Having a single author is not a factor for consideration in deciding keep or userfy, nor is disagreeing with an essay, according to
WP:NOESSAY. Not a single policy-based reason has been provided to justify unserfication here. --
В²C
☎ 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're complaining that there are no explicit rules against your essays. This is because no one else writes "essays" (disagree that these pages qualify as "essays") as badly as you do. Excepting the occasional unhappy screeds which we also userfy or delete, even if "project related". "Single author" is definitely a factor, which when combined with "disputed", is a simple reason to userfy a wide variety of things not suitable for projectspace. Contributors are given wide leeway for content in userspace, but not for project space. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really not see how your involvement in disagreements with me might be a factor in you saying things like "no one else writes "essays" as badly as you do"? How many of our essays have you scrutinized to the same level you have mine? How do you juxtapose your conclusion with all the Keeps registered here? I know it's difficult to recognize one's own lack of objectivity, but you could at least try, a little. --
В²C
☎ 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Calidum is wrong. We don't dislike you because you are you. We dislike your relentless battling for you personal theory, oblivious to consensus, ignoring counter points, using anything you can to build a pretense of support for you fantasy (which essentially is: If titles were made as short as possible, there would be no more titling arguments. yes?)
- Herostratus gives a lot of reasons why it is not a proper project essay, but holds out for it to be one day "improved". It has been around and promote well enough already, no one else is seriously interested in "improving it". That some have made an effort to remove the worst of it does not mean that they support it.
- Nyttend says nothing stronger than that you may have it in your userspace.
- BD2412, as per Herostratus, but without detail.
- My objective assessment is that you are engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling, which now is widely rejected on policy talk pages, and that you have turned to trying to use the guise of project space essays to present your opinions on a par with policy and guideline. Proper essays read as essays. Your essays read like a
cargo cult impression of policy. It is not OK for your to present your personal neologisms (Yogurt Rule; Concision Razor) as having community consensus, and it is not OK to write over, to hide, failed proposals that you don't like as having been historically rejected. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing objective about an assessment that finds me to be "engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling". That is your honest impression. I believe that. But it is never-the-less BONEHEADEDLY WRONG. Time and time again you misunderstand what I write, interpret it to mean something else entirely, and insist on interpreting it that way even after I've explained and re-explained. Leave me alone. --
В²C
☎ 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- If I may as proposer add two cents...it may be that the extra spotlight of attention is since no other en.wp editor (that I've seen) constantly cites personal no-consensus essays with WP:LOOKSLIKEAREALGUIDELINE type shortcuts in text walls at RfCs and RMs and even then ends up being on the wrong end of the RM/RFC how often, 70x out of the last 100? and then goes off to write more essays and shortcuts. And seriously do you really want half a dozen other editors to pile in edit it as User:Herostratus suggests? If a broader selection of editors engaged on this essay there would be little or nothing of your argument left. As with YOGHURT preserving it in your own user-space is a better solution for everyone, yourself included. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is my impression and assessment, ever since years ago you wandered over to WP:Consensus and tried to redefine it, using superficially OK logic, but which I eventually determined to be fallacious. It was difficult, because you don't write clearly. It is possible to understand you, but the reader has to work out the your meanings as you intend them, and not at face value. If fact, for this reason alone, your essays should be userfied. In project space, it is not sufficient that your writing can be understood, it must not be easily misunderstood. Exhaustive discussion with you to understand what you really meant, you seem to think is productive, but I certainly do not. It is not OK to leave what you write for others to misunderstand. Userfied, readers will assume that this is your writing. In project space, they will not. Userfied, it can be read and linked, but it will not appear on par with guideline and pages, pages whose style it attempts to emulate. Why do you resist? Perhaps I am boneheadedly wrong, but I can only guess that you want your opinion to carry the implicit approval associated with project space. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- On "boneheaded", I see that there is a variety of definitions out there. The one I had in mind matches the merriam-webster thesaurus definition "not having or showing an ability to absorb ideas readily", reflecting B2Cs strong adherence to his long standing ideas and resistance to persuasion to value other ideas. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing objective about an assessment that finds me to be "engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling". That is your honest impression. I believe that. But it is never-the-less BONEHEADEDLY WRONG. Time and time again you misunderstand what I write, interpret it to mean something else entirely, and insist on interpreting it that way even after I've explained and re-explained. Leave me alone. --
В²C
☎ 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really not see how your involvement in disagreements with me might be a factor in you saying things like "no one else writes "essays" as badly as you do"? How many of our essays have you scrutinized to the same level you have mine? How do you juxtapose your conclusion with all the Keeps registered here? I know it's difficult to recognize one's own lack of objectivity, but you could at least try, a little. --
В²C
☎ 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're complaining that there are no explicit rules against your essays. This is because no one else writes "essays" (disagree that these pages qualify as "essays") as badly as you do. Excepting the occasional unhappy screeds which we also userfy or delete, even if "project related". "Single author" is definitely a factor, which when combined with "disputed", is a simple reason to userfy a wide variety of things not suitable for projectspace. Contributors are given wide leeway for content in userspace, but not for project space. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again you're holding this essay to a standard no other essays are expected to meet. Having a single author is not a factor for consideration in deciding keep or userfy, nor is disagreeing with an essay, according to
WP:NOESSAY. Not a single policy-based reason has been provided to justify unserfication here. --
В²C
☎ 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the closer's rationale for rejecting userspace-without-redirect isn't actually applicable (there are no such "very large number" and "hundreds of discussions", only 17 pages that link to the userspaced essay), I've listed the redir
Wikipedia:Concision razor at
WP:RFD. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was userfy. The only "delete" and most "keep" opinions agree with userfying, and out of those who opined to "keep", there seems to be no objection to userfication as a viable solution (except from the author). I am however not going to userfy-without-redirect as that would orphan a very large number of links found in talkpage discussions and I think keeping a project>user redirect is less harmful than creating potential confusion in the histories of hundreds of discussions. Take it to RfD (linking to this close) if you feel so strongly about it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Concision razor
- Wikipedia:Concision razor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect.
The specific primary problem with both Wikipedia:Concision razor and the related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation is proposing and promoting in WP space, the confusion of WP:PRECISION with CONCISION, that the shortest article title must always be applied which interprets WP:AT policy against what WP:AT actually says. Same secondary problems as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is the creator of WP:Concision razor and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day). WP:CONCISE is part of our article naming, so why isn't an essay supporting its use allowed? Calidum Talk To Me 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- This copy pasting of personalizing comment from Calidum from the other MFD shouldn't detract from the discussion. The original case Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule was made by other editors, and this has also been pointed out. The MFD should be considered on its merits, someone else can state these better than I. I've reworded it by the way. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- (EC) @
Calidum: Actually, the nominator said per "Same problems as previous case" and then linked to it; it provides a substantial list of issues. Most (not quite all) of them appear to be applicable here. I
would rathersee the nom naming some specific reasons here, but characterizing this as a personality dispute is incorrect. Proof: see consensus for userspacing at the essay's own talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)- The "consensus" to which you refer is among a small group of editors with whom I have a history of disagreements that is ultimately philosophical in nature. That's hardly objective or representative of the community at large. What's critical in these mFd's are the opinions of editors uninvolved in these title disputes. You are not among them, of course, and neither is In ictu oculi, Smokey Joe, Omnedon, Huwman, that remarkably-informed-on-esoteric-WP-matters IP I can't memorize, and a couple of others. -- В²C ☎ 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- User-space it, without redirect, and delete any shortcuts, per
WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays]]." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.
[1] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
- The author very [2] strongly [3] insists [4] on tagging it as a {{ guidance essay}} (previously a {{ supplement}}), yet there is no support anywhere for it to be considered acceptable guidance material; its own talk page shows that it does not have such acceptance. Its very presence in project-space is problematic.
- The title misleadingly implies it is some kind of policy or other rule, for which it is too easily and often mistaken, and its author cites it that way, but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
- Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Concision razor". Instead, it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall of why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
- The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g. here).
- About two-thirds of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
- Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{ Failed}}. It already was once, [5] but Born2cycle reverted it. Someone else's proposal for essentially the same idea was also previously rejected, at the pre-Born2cycle WP:Unnecessary disambiguation
- It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at the current version of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
- Keep. I think if an essay proffers some interpretation of our rules, and it's a reasonable interpretation and stated with sufficient cogency it's OK. Yes a call for complete negation of important rules might not be appropriate. This essay is nowhere near that, it accepts the Five Virtues of article titles and just offers the opinion that one of them is more important.
- It doesn't make its point very well. I guess it's trying to say that concision is more important than the other four virtues outlined at WP:CRITERIA, but it shys away from really saying that, dealing with the implications of saying that, or offering any concrete guidance on how to apply it. It also doesn't offer any argument or reason for particularly valorizing concision as opposed to, say, recognizability. So it's not a very good or useful essay I don't think. (I don't agree with the above poster that presenting and then demolishing arguments is not OK -- it's a common and acceptable rhetorical device -- but I do agree that I can't see many people saying "per WP:RAZOR" since there's no "per" there really.)
- Still, I dunno. Maybe people have been making the argument "pfft, concision, it's in the rule but we really don't pay much attention to that as a matter of practice" and we need a counter to that, or something. Not a great essay but not madness or lunacy or illiteracy, and it might get improved. It's my opinion that, although I don't really like it, that it lies north of the line "of sufficient quality to exist" so let it lie I guess. If not, then userfy without prejudice.
Herostratus (
talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-
WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but
straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, that's different maybe. However, the only changes that need to stick are those that strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred". Any changes that make the reader more likely to walk away from the essay thinking "Wow, that was convincing, and I now do believe that, in a title, conciseness is more important than topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth" would be welcome, you'd think, and if the original author is being recalcitrant over changes of that nature then that's odd but yes I guess that would be a problem.
- @
Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-
WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but
straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all.
Herostratus (
talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "
WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in
WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like
WP:Don't template the regulars and
WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in
WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an
Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see
WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.)
WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that would be the case if this were such an "essay ... actually intended to say that", but it's not a community-created summary of a major viewpoint on these matters that actually presents a rationale for why conciseness is important within the context of the other CRITERIA and should be interpreted as trumping other concerns like the inertia you mention or topical naming conventions. It's one user's jealously guarded opinion piece laying out straw man arguments for why actual WP practice should be ignored. That's why I'm arguing for user-spacing, not deletion. If I wrote an essay on why official names of things should always, always be used, and to hell with all other concerns, that should be user-spaced as contrarian personal venting, and would be a very different page from one we all wrote together on why official names should be given a due amount of concern when balancing the CRITERIA. Honestly, such an essay might well be needed, because too many people think that any other concern can trump official names and this isn't really true. And maybe an essay on balancing conciseness with other CRITERIA is needed, too, but it's not this essay and the page's author won't let anyone try to steer it in that direction. PS: I wasn't saying it would be impossible to create a NOAADD, I'm suggesting rather that it would be rapidly user-spaced for the same reasons at issue here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see
WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.)
WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too.
Herostratus (
talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- @
Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "
WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in
WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like
WP:Don't template the regulars and
WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in
WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an
Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all.
Herostratus (
talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an essay. If you don't think that it belongs in projectspace, request that it be moved to the author's userspace, but there's no need to get rid of an essay entirely just because of its content. Nyttend ( talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy. Essays are fine, but this one belongs in userspace. Omnedon ( talk) 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per Herostratus. I am accused of "OWNing" the essay. I dispute that claim. I only ask what Herostratus points out should happen: "if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it". As I've said many times, if you disagree with [the main thrust] of an essay, then write a different essay. I welcome all criticisms and improvements to the essay, as long as they " strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred." It is not my intent, and never has been, to promote conciseness as a more important criterion. If anything, it is the least important, having a role only when the two titles in question meet the other criteria equally well. In fact, that's the point! -- В²C ☎ 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well if it's not especially important I don't get what you're trying to say. If your point devolves to "I like it that conciseness is one of the title criteria, and if it wasn't I would campaign to make it one" that's fine but it is probably best expressed in userspace because it's not something that people will will invoke much.
- So then let me ask you this: could we have four other essays -- WP:Recognizability razor ("If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than recognizability equally well, then the more recognizable one is preferred"), WP:Naturalness razor, WP:Precision razor, and WP:Consistency razor? This follows from "It is not my intent... to promote conciseness as a more important criterion", right? So yes or no? If yes, then I maybe your point is "When a title meets four of the WP:CRITERIA more or less equally well, but not a fifth, then rather than saying 'enh, only one out of five, let's just leave it as it was' we should say 'well, even with just one out five, we should change the title'" -- but that's a different essay. If your answer is no (that is, conciseness is particularly important so the concision razor is a special thing, which I gather you're not trying to say) then you should make that clear, and also address whether conciseness should tend to trump the topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth, and ideally explain why.
- So it's not very clear or useful. And since it's not clear or useful it needs improvement and until then is very unlikely to be invoked much in arguments, so it arguably belongs in userspace at least for now. I'm liberal about the criteria for what gets to be in wikispace so I say "enh, keep" but others might not be so and they'd have a point.
- So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank?
Herostratus (
talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?
Really, this is just an expansion on WP:CRITERIA that applies in certain types of cases. Or, rather, it's an explication on how to assess CRITERIA in certain cases, if you will.
As to your last question, what is the answer to that question with respect to any WP space essay? It's the same here. Being in WP space conveys that at least a number of editors agree with what it says, or at least agree that it doesn't contradict policy. If it's in my user space, the 5-10 editors who don't like it will dismiss as being a "user space essay" expressing only my opinion which contradicts policy (without ever explaining how it contracts policy, just as they are unable to do here). That will mean fewer will read it and give it the thought I believe it deserves. I hope I've addressed you concerns and questions. Let me know if you have any others. -- В²C ☎ 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?
- So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank?
Herostratus (
talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. If changes are needed, propose a specific change and seek consensus for it on the essay's talk page. bd2412 T 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not quite as mischevious as the page being discussed above, but that's only because this is more oblique and thus less immediately understandable. Still, it's the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. Perfectly OK in user space of course, just as would be an essay of mine explaining why I thoroughly disagree with it. (I could of course argue that my position represents outr true policy, but in practice this sort of thing in WP space just causes confusion.) DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Userfy or delete if the owner doesn't want it. Essentially a disputed single author essay. As well discussed on the talk page and here, this is an OWNed, single users opinion, failing as an essay because all contained logic is flawed. This is not an essay supporting WP:CONCISE, but twisted twisting of policy much more disruptive than helpful to editors who may take it at face value, assuming that usual credance afforded to project space pages.
- Attempts by others to assist the OWNer in comprehensible expression should not be taken as endorsement of the authors opinions. In principle, other editors could improve it, but no other editor is seriously interested in doing so, and in userspace it can better say what it says without implied community acceptance.
- I agree with Herostratus's comments on the talk page, that it could be made more reasonable, but as it stands, it is a poor attempt at what is an acceptable essay, it is a single author opinion conflated with layers of fallacious logic.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy applies. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again you're holding this essay to a standard no other essays are expected to meet. Having a single author is not a factor for consideration in deciding keep or userfy, nor is disagreeing with an essay, according to
WP:NOESSAY. Not a single policy-based reason has been provided to justify unserfication here. --
В²C
☎ 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're complaining that there are no explicit rules against your essays. This is because no one else writes "essays" (disagree that these pages qualify as "essays") as badly as you do. Excepting the occasional unhappy screeds which we also userfy or delete, even if "project related". "Single author" is definitely a factor, which when combined with "disputed", is a simple reason to userfy a wide variety of things not suitable for projectspace. Contributors are given wide leeway for content in userspace, but not for project space. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really not see how your involvement in disagreements with me might be a factor in you saying things like "no one else writes "essays" as badly as you do"? How many of our essays have you scrutinized to the same level you have mine? How do you juxtapose your conclusion with all the Keeps registered here? I know it's difficult to recognize one's own lack of objectivity, but you could at least try, a little. --
В²C
☎ 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Calidum is wrong. We don't dislike you because you are you. We dislike your relentless battling for you personal theory, oblivious to consensus, ignoring counter points, using anything you can to build a pretense of support for you fantasy (which essentially is: If titles were made as short as possible, there would be no more titling arguments. yes?)
- Herostratus gives a lot of reasons why it is not a proper project essay, but holds out for it to be one day "improved". It has been around and promote well enough already, no one else is seriously interested in "improving it". That some have made an effort to remove the worst of it does not mean that they support it.
- Nyttend says nothing stronger than that you may have it in your userspace.
- BD2412, as per Herostratus, but without detail.
- My objective assessment is that you are engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling, which now is widely rejected on policy talk pages, and that you have turned to trying to use the guise of project space essays to present your opinions on a par with policy and guideline. Proper essays read as essays. Your essays read like a
cargo cult impression of policy. It is not OK for your to present your personal neologisms (Yogurt Rule; Concision Razor) as having community consensus, and it is not OK to write over, to hide, failed proposals that you don't like as having been historically rejected. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing objective about an assessment that finds me to be "engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling". That is your honest impression. I believe that. But it is never-the-less BONEHEADEDLY WRONG. Time and time again you misunderstand what I write, interpret it to mean something else entirely, and insist on interpreting it that way even after I've explained and re-explained. Leave me alone. --
В²C
☎ 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- If I may as proposer add two cents...it may be that the extra spotlight of attention is since no other en.wp editor (that I've seen) constantly cites personal no-consensus essays with WP:LOOKSLIKEAREALGUIDELINE type shortcuts in text walls at RfCs and RMs and even then ends up being on the wrong end of the RM/RFC how often, 70x out of the last 100? and then goes off to write more essays and shortcuts. And seriously do you really want half a dozen other editors to pile in edit it as User:Herostratus suggests? If a broader selection of editors engaged on this essay there would be little or nothing of your argument left. As with YOGHURT preserving it in your own user-space is a better solution for everyone, yourself included. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is my impression and assessment, ever since years ago you wandered over to WP:Consensus and tried to redefine it, using superficially OK logic, but which I eventually determined to be fallacious. It was difficult, because you don't write clearly. It is possible to understand you, but the reader has to work out the your meanings as you intend them, and not at face value. If fact, for this reason alone, your essays should be userfied. In project space, it is not sufficient that your writing can be understood, it must not be easily misunderstood. Exhaustive discussion with you to understand what you really meant, you seem to think is productive, but I certainly do not. It is not OK to leave what you write for others to misunderstand. Userfied, readers will assume that this is your writing. In project space, they will not. Userfied, it can be read and linked, but it will not appear on par with guideline and pages, pages whose style it attempts to emulate. Why do you resist? Perhaps I am boneheadedly wrong, but I can only guess that you want your opinion to carry the implicit approval associated with project space. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- On "boneheaded", I see that there is a variety of definitions out there. The one I had in mind matches the merriam-webster thesaurus definition "not having or showing an ability to absorb ideas readily", reflecting B2Cs strong adherence to his long standing ideas and resistance to persuasion to value other ideas. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing objective about an assessment that finds me to be "engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling". That is your honest impression. I believe that. But it is never-the-less BONEHEADEDLY WRONG. Time and time again you misunderstand what I write, interpret it to mean something else entirely, and insist on interpreting it that way even after I've explained and re-explained. Leave me alone. --
В²C
☎ 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really not see how your involvement in disagreements with me might be a factor in you saying things like "no one else writes "essays" as badly as you do"? How many of our essays have you scrutinized to the same level you have mine? How do you juxtapose your conclusion with all the Keeps registered here? I know it's difficult to recognize one's own lack of objectivity, but you could at least try, a little. --
В²C
☎ 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're complaining that there are no explicit rules against your essays. This is because no one else writes "essays" (disagree that these pages qualify as "essays") as badly as you do. Excepting the occasional unhappy screeds which we also userfy or delete, even if "project related". "Single author" is definitely a factor, which when combined with "disputed", is a simple reason to userfy a wide variety of things not suitable for projectspace. Contributors are given wide leeway for content in userspace, but not for project space. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again you're holding this essay to a standard no other essays are expected to meet. Having a single author is not a factor for consideration in deciding keep or userfy, nor is disagreeing with an essay, according to
WP:NOESSAY. Not a single policy-based reason has been provided to justify unserfication here. --
В²C
☎ 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As the closer's rationale for rejecting userspace-without-redirect isn't actually applicable (there are no such "very large number" and "hundreds of discussions", only 17 pages that link to the userspaced essay), I've listed the redir
Wikipedia:Concision razor at
WP:RFD. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)