User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

[edit] Singular vs plural

In the interest of centralizing the discussion, please bring the discussion of {{sport-stub}} and its relatives here. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many points to cover, but it can be done as an intro, a statement of the proposal, summary list of issues, and some followup proposals and observations:

Long before WSS even existed there was and has continued a convention on naming categories, including stub categories and their templates, relating to sport/sports with the plural form of the word, as in {{air-sports-stub}}, Cat:Air sports, Cat:Air sports stubs (the sole, and very widespread exception being when it is preceded by a geography, as in {{UK-sport-stub}}, Cat:British sport, Cat:British sport stubs, a usage that probably descends from sports organizations, ministries and sanctioning bodies preferring the singular form for its "authoritative" tone.) This convention is mirrored by martial arts and various other topics.

I propose to amend the WSS naming guidelines to simply account for this, and similar conventions (for example arts, not art, when the category relates to the arts, rather than to paintings), to dissuage any further SfD and Stub Proposals bickering over the issue, which is rapidly approaching wikilawyering as defined at WP:LAWYER (namely the insistence on the exact literal word of policies or guidelines in contravention of their spirit or intent, which in this case is the helpful but not counterintuitive and inflexible sorting of stubs, and the willful misinterpretetation of policies or guidelines to insist upon a particular outcome that is not in fact called for). Alternatively I propose that WSS actually adhere to the extant guideline, as it is written, rather than as how some individuals would prefer to interpret it if only it actually said what they think or wish it said.

I would not say that anyone is wikilawyering yet, but the nature of this error of both vagueness and overbreadth in WPSS naming guidelines is directly encouraging it.

WP:WSS/NG:

1. Is not an actual Wikipedia Guideline, and does not have community consensus yet; it is simply a WikiProject document like any other which expresses the opinions of some WSS members, but has not been submitted as a Proposal and thus has not gathered very broad community input, being principally the work of only four editors, with minor input from a handful more.
2. Is leading inexorably toward wikilawyering on an increasing basis, in the forms of both resistance to new but justified stubs and questionable renames of existing ones and their categories where long usage conflicts with the "law" of the naming guidelines
3. Is already selectively ignored by WSS "old hands" when they feel like it (which will lead to more conflicts and lack of consensus)
4. Is largely ignored by the community anyway when the WSS/NG recommendations conflict with common sense or long-standing pre-existing practice, suggesting almost beyond doubt that it has lack of operational consensus to begin with, likely due to its counterintuitiveness and incompletely development (which until the WSS/NG is updated to handle this will, again, lead to more conflicts)
5. Post-dates actual usage, and so is retroactively trying to change stub naming practices that already have enjoyed de facto consensus for a long time
6. Is in conflict with much broader and better-established guidelines of a like nature, in that the WP article naming conventions prefer singulars, but do not require them in every single conceivable case, and the community has consistently been very tolerant of exceptions, unlike WSS to date; there is simply something very unwikimedian about how stub naming is presently being handled, as if it were a bureaucracy, with statutes.
7. Nowhere actually says that the "major component" must be singular in the first place &mdash the words "singular" and "plural" and their derivates appear no where in the document at all, and all we have is a list of example that happen to be singular
8. Provides an incomplete list that appears to studiously avoid any amibiguous situations and thus never deals with the issue; "sports" and all similar terms ("arts", etc) are notabilty absent
9. Calls its recommendation "rules", which is an inaccurate label
10. Yet notes "there are, of course, many exceptions", begging the question why this is not being recognized by WSS in its own processes
11. And notes that WSS only has an interest in insisting that stubs/stubcats follow its naming preferences "some" of the time (with the implication that this is when the original or proposed new stub name would be very off-base), begging the same question
12. Further notes that if stubs "work well enough" there is nothing wrong with them, again begging the same question
13. Lists a few examples of exceptions, and pointedly notes that the list is not exhaustive, again begging the same question
14. (Correctly) makes a request not a demand at the top of the WSS/NG to propose and discuss stub creation and naming, yet treats it as if it were a requirement backed by Policy, again begging the same question
15. Is getting directly in the way of WSS doing useful work, by absorbing time with (unsupported) debates that would otherwise be spent doing what WSS actually exists for (and why I joined WSS): stub sorting
16. Far worse, is getting directly in the way of many non WSS editors who wander into it trying to do the presumptive "right thing" but who find their article writing and cleanup time dwindling, by having to defend simple and straightforward stub proposals and renames from concerted attack by WSS members who seem to have nothing to do but fight over single-character differences in stub names, in topic areas they'll never touch themselves
17. Is, because of WSS's failure to follow its own documentation, inevitably going to lead frustrated editors to invoke WP:IAR (especially since WSS/NG isn't actually a WP Policy or Guideline in the first place), weakening WSS and leading to yet more conflict
18. Is woefully outdated, and does not accurately represent stubspace at all
19. Does not reflect actual stub naming practices in other ways as well (e.g., the excessive "abbreviationitis" is exhibits has largely been ignored in actual practice)
20. Takes a "daddy knows best" anti-consensus approach to the issue of stub sorting, which has led to highly authoritarian and borderline WP:OWN behavior patterns

Those are some but not all of the noticeable problems, but we have to start somewhere. As noted above, the proposal is either/or: Adhere to the quasi-guideline as it is written and quit being so vociferously (and often aggressively) nitpicky as a sub-community, or correct some of its deficiencies, in particular either noting that the "major part" does not have to be singular if it would conflict with common usage (perhaps giving sports and arts as examples), or adding such examples to the Exceptions section.

I further propose: that aside from this, the document be totally overhauled to address many of the other above problems not directly relating to the "intuitive exceptions" issue raised more pointedly.

I further propose: that this document be made a Wikipedia Proposal, advertised on WP:VP, and thus opened more broadly to community input; given the increasing relationship between CfD (which does have broad consensus and actual guidelines behind it) and SfD (which does not), ths i

I further observe: that simply going in and adding "singular" here, and "not plural" there, and otherwise twiddling the document with a thin coat of whitewash to suit personal biases will likely be interpreted as a bad faith action, perhaps even WP:POINT or worse. The problem with WP:WSS/NG is not that it fails reflect what a few hardcore SfD aficionado wish it reflected because it would suit their stub-sorting preferences. The problem with WP:WSS/NG is that it does not reflect consensus, it is an unfinished document with vagueness, overbreadth, counterintutivity and internal consistency problems in a rather large pile, and it is being radically misquoted/misinterpreted, with actions taken/opposed every day on the basis of "facts" that simply aren't anywhere in evidence. The process is as off-kilter as the document. A broad community discussion needs to take place, including many people outside WSS, because CfD is already deferring (incorrectly in my view, at this stage) to SfD, apparently on the assumption that this community consensus-building effort has actually taken place, when it clearly has not.

PS: None of the above should be interpreted as some outsider coming in here and attacking WSS and its documents. I'm a WSS member and have been for some time. The above is an expression of insider disappointment and in some cases alarm after direct observation and participation, and a desire to work towards solutions. It is also tinged with frustration from a just-an-editor point of view, but honestly that should be a bigger red flag to everyone here that there are problems that need addressing than what I have to say as a WSS member per se. If that isn't instantly clear, then something has really gone off the rails around here. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)