- Comet Hale–Bopp(talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
Four reasons. As below, a pejorative should never be used in a close, a closing admin needs to be unbiased, and clearly JhunterJ is not - if someone feels they need to use a pejorative in a close, they should not be doing the close, Snow can not be used when the vote is 4:2, nor can it be used in an uphill battle which might not be won, and finally, even a speedy close should not be done in less than 19 hours over the weekend, when Wikipedia traditionally has less traffic. Comets, of the four ways that MOS advocates have been inappropriately applying endashes, is the most inappropriate, because there is actually a naming authority that names comets the same way they name planets - with only spaces and hyphens (after a name is given). In these move requests we always have a half a dozen or so MOS editors who want to enforce their view of how things should be spelled, regardless of common sense. While they made a perfectly logical decision, they came to a completely illogical conclusion. It happens. Someone simply needs to point that out. There is no reason for a few editors to think they have any right to tell all of the rest of us how to spell things.
Apteva(talk)19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The move discussion has been going on since October 11 while you disruptively forum-shop for anyone who agrees with you. You are absolutely right, there is no reason for a single editor to think he or she has any right to tell all of the rest of Wikipedia how to spell things. Since you have been unable to get consensus for your preferred treatment of dashes and hyphens at the manual of style, kindly stop pursuing moves contrary to that consensus. That an unbiased admin came to the discussion and found your approach to be disruptive does not magically bias that admin. Noting that a disruptive request is being closed as disruptive is not evidence of a problem in the close, but of a problem in the request. --JHunterJ(talk)20:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A separate discussion was opened on 9 October, and withdrawn on 11 October based on the information that I had at the time, which turned out to be erroneous. It was opened on 18 November after this had been fully discussed at MOS, with the last information prevailing that a hyphen should be used. There beingno challenge to that for two weeksit seemed clear that this RM would proceed without challenge. There is a severe disruption to Wikipedia, and I am not it. The disruption is thinking that Mexican American War should be spelled with an endash instead of a hyphen, even though that clearly is not the case, and applying that false information to comets, bridges and airports. That is the disruption - changing hundreds to thousands of articles to inappropriate titles by using endashes where hyphens should be used, and I take strong offense to the word disruption being used in connection with someone who is obviously simply correcting an obvious error in Wikipedia. Disruption is not a word that should be thrown out in such a casual manner. There are disruptions to Wikipedia, what I am doing is not one of them, and even if ten people vote that someone is being disruptive in proposing say that France should be moved to F'*&ing Fyz, the closer should be level headed enough to use the closing argument "no consensus", or something, because of the pejorative context of the word "disruptive". As I said before, if someone thinks they need to use the word disruptive in a closing remark, they should not be doing the close. Admins are required to remain level headed, and when they can not do that, they need to recuse themself.Apteva(talk)00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closeper JHunter. ( Note I was involved in the most recent discussion. )PaleAqua(talk)23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeEndorse close.I think this can be resolved withWikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Not_part_of_the_encyclopedia:
- Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.
- The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves arenotpart of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they donotgenerally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Wikipedia's administrative pages, or to phrase Wikipedia procedures or principles in a neutral manner, or to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors.
- The MOS doesn't have to follow the most common usage. There is no "wrong" answer to this style question so there's no need to fix all of these "wrong" titles. If therewere,it'd be best to get a consensus on the MOS rather than doing this serially article-by-article.AgnosticAphidtalk01:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought there was a consensus on this at WP:MOS, based on the discussion there. But to say that how we do things does not have to conform to what we do sounds pretty strange. Suppose we all decide to use commas at the end of sentences instead of periods, would that be acceptable? Would it help or hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia? Using dashes where hyphens should be used is no different than using commas instead of periods at the end of sentences - in principle. If anyone wants everyone to follow the MOS we need to have it follow common usage. Otherwise we create a conflict between policy and guideline, and in that case, policy always wins.Apteva(talk)01:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Suppose we all decide to use commas at the end of sentences..." is a straw man, since no one uses commas as period-substitutes just because their keyboard lacks an easy way to enter periods. It is not the same in principle or practice. If you want to help, get consensus for a new MOS guidelines on endashes and hyphens before making more of the disruptive move requests. --JHunterJ(talk)13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that Wikipedia never chooses something that no one else does. To say that we can is ridiculous - as ridiculous as commas at the end of sentences. I am certainly pursuing the issue at the MOS but the MOS reflects what is current practice, it does not dictate practice, so if someone wants to change the MOS, the first step is to change the articles that are affected, and then change the MOS to reflect that change.
- I will remind everyone that "disruptive" is a pejorative, a word used to degrade, denounce, or discredit, and it is simply not appropriate in a discussion. To make it simpler to understand, it is used as an attack word to attack the editor, and I believe there is a policy againstWP:Attacks.Plus it is never disruptive to correct an error. Sure it takes time to address, but that is why Wikipedia is a wiki, so that anyone can suggest changes. To define certain changes (when they are correct) as not permitted is absurd. We do need to discuss the endash/hyphen issue, but not at the expense of putting endashes into articles that do not use endashes.Apteva(talk)17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong about this as well. "Disruptive" is not a pejorative, and I am not using it to degrade. SeeWikipedia:Disruptive editing,and if you still feel that it has no place in a discussion, see if you can get that page (as well asWikipedia:Disruptive user) deleted; once they are deleted, I will stop using them in discussions about the behaviors described there. --JHunterJ(talk)17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disruptive editing clearly does not apply. The first sentence ends "disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia". It is clearly an improvement to the encyclopedia to use hyphens where hyphens are appropriate and endashes where endashes are appropriate. What is disruptive is doing the opposite. This is an example of being wrong and accusing those who are right of being wrong.Apteva(talk)20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I thinkisdisruptive perWP:IDHTis just repeatedly overlooking the difference between a substantive error in encyclopedic content and stylistic choices made for consistency's sake based on Wikipedia's in-house manual of style. It is antithetical to the point of having a manual of style in the first place to go around making article-by-article exceptions to the manual based on common usage. This isn't the encyclopedia of Comet Hale–Bopp (or Comet Hale-Bopp), it's the encyclopedia of everything. I amcertainly notthe first person to state this, yet you repeatedly open move discussions in all sorts of places based on your views about what is and isn't the common usage of dashes and hyphens in particular circumstances.AgnosticAphidtalk06:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting way off topic, but what appears to be a stylistic choice for consistency case makes no sense for two reasons. The choice of punctuation is definitely not a stylistic choice, and wikipedia will never nor should ever attempt, to maintain a uniform, consistent style. Even Featured Articles have half a dozen equally valid choices, if not even hundreds. What is patently absurd is I am trying to get people to end sentences with periods and capitalize the first words in sentences, and there are two or three editors running around insisting on misspelling comets. Obviously there is nothing wrong with fixing them as I am attempting, and obviously it is inappropriate to shut off discussion by pretending there is a consensus to misspell anything. There arethree obvious errorsin WP:MOS - fix those and all of this goes away. One is misspelling Hale-Bopp and using it as an example of using an endash, and that is currently under discussion there.Apteva(talk)07:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As ever, build the new consensus atWikipedia talk:Manual of Stylefirst before trying to makeWP:LOCALCONSENSUSat the articles that would changeifyou could get a new consensus. Going after the local consensuses first is disruptive, and simple repetition of your claim that "endash = misspelling" does not make it true. Also, you keep using the word "obviously" to apply to things that are obviously not obvious, as the extensive conversations atWikipedia talk:Manual of Styleprove. Perhaps you could focus more on the consensuses you agree with, such as ending sentences with periods and capitalizing the first words in sentences. --JHunterJ(talk)13:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the MOS is clearly being pursued, but there is a) a very toxic atmosphere there that makes normal discussion difficult, and b) no reason to misspell things in the meantime. The MOS follows what articles does, not the other way around, so changing articles first is more meaningful than changing the MOS first.Apteva(talk)04:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's this "no reason not to go ahead on the assumption that my consensus has already been reached" approach that is disruptive. Yes, the MOS follows what the articles do, but the articles follow the current consensus. Current consensus does not agree with you that using an endash on Wikipedia where IAU uses a hyphen is "misspelling". --JHunterJ(talk)12:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried getting a consensus in WP:MOS, but I get stonewalled all the time.....There is an on-going discussion right now.Which someone has tried to "fix" with a poll, after a few editors failed to support the arguments against the change. --Enric Naval(talk)22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Someone" being Apteva, after a few editors failed to form a new consensus for the change. --JHunterJ(talk)13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rule number one in building consensus is to discuss the issue, not the person or persons involved in the discussion.Apteva(talk)02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is a review of moves you initiated. The on-going discussion over there is the one in which this issue should be discussed. Good advice. --JHunterJ(talk)12:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a review of moves one person initiated. It is a review of theclosesthat were made by an admin who should have had the sense to recuse themself from closing them. The issue is not who did what but what was done, and was it reasonable. When the issue becomes who did what then there can be no discussion of what is reasonable. Yes the issue will be discussed here there and anywhere else it comes up. Comets do not use endashes.Apteva(talk)16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, comets do not use English. The IAU does not use endashes. Wikipedia is not the IAU. Also, please take your own advice about not focusing on the person. --JHunterJ(talk)18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comets arespelledwith hyphens and spaces. Is that better? Sorry, but this discussion is about the actions of the admin who closed the RMs.Apteva(talk)20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|