| Revision as of 18:34, 20 June 2019 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,378,936 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Mandruss/Archive 7. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:11, 21 June 2019 edit undoMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,307 edits →Ping test: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :{{ping|DocWatson42}} Hello. Except for compelling isolated exceptions, I oppose Misplaced Pages edits that are in direct contravention of the Misplaced Pages MOS. If Misplaced Pages felt an exception were in order, it would be stated in our MOS (and I'd probably oppose that as an unjustifiable pedantic complication). From a more practical standpoint, commas that are not MOS-compliant are not going to "stick" in the long term, as there are far more editors who follow our MOS than who follow CMOS. ―] ] 13:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC) | :{{ping|DocWatson42}} Hello. Except for compelling isolated exceptions, I oppose Misplaced Pages edits that are in direct contravention of the Misplaced Pages MOS. If Misplaced Pages felt an exception were in order, it would be stated in our MOS (and I'd probably oppose that as an unjustifiable pedantic complication). From a more practical standpoint, commas that are not MOS-compliant are not going to "stick" in the long term, as there are far more editors who follow our MOS than who follow CMOS. ―] ] 13:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :: Personally, I prefer the ''Chicago'' style, but mostly I just wanted to explain why I had made that edit. (Mostly I find that "Jr.", "III", et cetera in references still appended to the family, not the personal, name, and have been trying to fix that, which is how I came to use that ''Chicago'' rule. :-/) —] (]) 04:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC) | :: Personally, I prefer the ''Chicago'' style, but mostly I just wanted to explain why I had made that edit. (Mostly I find that "Jr.", "III", et cetera in references still appended to the family, not the personal, name, and have been trying to fix that, which is how I came to use that ''Chicago'' rule. :-/) —] (]) 04:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| == Ping test == | |||
| Hi BullRangifer! ―] ] 19:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:11, 21 June 2019
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)
There is one place at Misplaced Pages where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults.
Undue weight
Hi. I disagree with this. Please don't take offense to this, but I think your view here is reflective of your own misunderstanding of WP:NPV. If you look closely at WP:WEIGHT, it says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, ...
When editors refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, etc., or say that something should be excluded because it's undue weight, that's a shorthand for saying that including that particular content would be adding too much detail or too much text to a particular viewpoint, or more often, an unbalanced amount of detail or text to a particular aspect of the article subject (WP:BALASPS). It's fully supported by the policy.
Of course, many editors do misunderstand WP:NPV, and some lazy editors do point shout neutrality as a catchall when they simply don't like certain content, but those are separate problems. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I had already "looked closely at WP:WEIGHT", and I believe it means weight that is due or undue per the amount of RS coverage, not per our personal views of the importance or significance. In other words, it means that RS decide what's due, not Misplaced Pages editors. The interpretation you and many others use leaves things wide open to the personal bias that we all have. You may have noticed that most editors' views on importance or significance correlate well with their known political leanings, as follows:
Trump supporters Trump opponents Trump-favorable content More significant Less significant Trump-unfavorable content Less significant More significant
- ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Added the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It seems I misunderstood the thrust of your complaint. However I think if there's a problem in that regard, it's that a slight change or clarification may be needed to WP:NPV, not a change in editing behavior, at least with respect to current events coverage. I think most editors rightly understand, implicitly, that it's neither practical nor correct to decide what stays and what goes based solely on relative counts of how often something has appeared in the newspapers. This is in large part because, of course, Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper, and our job is to inform readers of the broader historical context rather than the day-to-day goings-on. There is a nod to this in WP:BALASPS. It's an inherently speculative and subjective exercise when we're dealing with current events. R2 (bleep) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Very logical, and it would work if most editors were willing and able to truly check their biases at the door. The fact is that most are not, and your interpretation ensures that AP2 article content depends on numbers present on each side of the spectrum. If article content depends on numbers, we don't need policy or even discussion—outcomes would be largely the same without them. I'm afraid your approach fails to realistically account for the human factor. While mine is far from perfect, in my view it beats democratic voting with a lot of policy/discussion window dressing.Anyway, I hope you haven't allowed this side issue to distract you from the main point and the larger problem, that (1) editors all too often misapply PAGs in discussions (or don't even try to connect their reasoning to PAGs), and (2) closers generally don't expend the time and energy to enforce correct application of PAGs, closing against the majority when necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ah well I certainly agree with that latter part. On the flip side, the system works most of the time, albeit crudely. In my view, roughly 1/3 of the editors in any given AP2 RfC will vote predictably according to their political views, perhaps dressing up their votes with policies and acronyms, perhaps not; roughly a 1/3 of the editors do the exact same thing, just in the opposite direct politically; and the remaining 1/3 will actually vary their votes depending on the application of PAGs and the relative strength of the arguments. What ends up happening is that the PAGs and stronger arguments tend to win by 2/3 majority. Most of the time. Not always. Sometimes it's just plain mob rule with a little window dressing. R2 (bleep) 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Very logical, and it would work if most editors were willing and able to truly check their biases at the door. The fact is that most are not, and your interpretation ensures that AP2 article content depends on numbers present on each side of the spectrum. If article content depends on numbers, we don't need policy or even discussion—outcomes would be largely the same without them. I'm afraid your approach fails to realistically account for the human factor. While mine is far from perfect, in my view it beats democratic voting with a lot of policy/discussion window dressing.Anyway, I hope you haven't allowed this side issue to distract you from the main point and the larger problem, that (1) editors all too often misapply PAGs in discussions (or don't even try to connect their reasoning to PAGs), and (2) closers generally don't expend the time and energy to enforce correct application of PAGs, closing against the majority when necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- It seems I misunderstood the thrust of your complaint. However I think if there's a problem in that regard, it's that a slight change or clarification may be needed to WP:NPV, not a change in editing behavior, at least with respect to current events coverage. I think most editors rightly understand, implicitly, that it's neither practical nor correct to decide what stays and what goes based solely on relative counts of how often something has appeared in the newspapers. This is in large part because, of course, Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper, and our job is to inform readers of the broader historical context rather than the day-to-day goings-on. There is a nod to this in WP:BALASPS. It's an inherently speculative and subjective exercise when we're dealing with current events. R2 (bleep) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Your reversion of my edits to "Hillary Clinton"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Hillary Clinton. Please pardon me—I was unaware of MOS:JR, and was following The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed., section 6.43 (pp. 384–385; online citation), which does require the use of commas in these particular cases—in direct contravention of the Misplaced Pages MOS. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @DocWatson42: Hello. Except for compelling isolated exceptions, I oppose Misplaced Pages edits that are in direct contravention of the Misplaced Pages MOS. If Misplaced Pages felt an exception were in order, it would be stated in our MOS (and I'd probably oppose that as an unjustifiable pedantic complication). From a more practical standpoint, commas that are not MOS-compliant are not going to "stick" in the long term, as there are far more editors who follow our MOS than who follow CMOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I prefer the Chicago style, but mostly I just wanted to explain why I had made that edit. (Mostly I find that "Jr.", "III", et cetera in references still appended to the family, not the personal, name, and have been trying to fix that, which is how I came to use that Chicago rule. :-/) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping test
Hi BullRangifer! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)