Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation

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, in line with the results of other recent MfDs of similar essays. This essay represents one editor's opinion and does not represent community consensus and is clearly controversial; its presence in project space, especially with the shortcut, conveys the impression that it is somehow official or widely accepted, which is clearly inappropriate in this case. It can fulfil its intended function just as well from userspace without the problems created by its presence in project space, and as it appears that the author has been exercising ownership of the page by reverting unwelcome edits, userspace seems to be the place for it to be. I will split the history and delete the project-space redirects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Unnecessary disambiguation#Time to Userfy?

Same primary problem as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor - an essay dominated by one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA). Secondary additional problem making usual remedies for salvaging unbalanced essays unworkable as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In this case there was an underlying briefer essay here earlier which possibly had a greater degree of consensus but was apparently rarely cited, reverting to historical status and freezing may be an alternative option but the user would presumably prefer userfying to trimming back and freezing. Therefore current state and use of the essay puts it in the same box as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule - unfortunate but an extreme and unusual case, therefore proposing a solution which has already worked with the Yoghurt Rule essay. Also the shortcut WP:UNDAB would need to be deleted rather than continue to direct to an essay as WP:YOGHURTRULE was deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is one the main authors of WP:Unnecessary disambiguation (Born2cycle) 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).Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I didn't nominate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule. Calidum please try to concentrate on the substance of the problem. (Which perhaps I was assuming too much background knowledge, have expanded and restructured the MFD proposal above). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a totally non-substantive comment, Calidum. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – B2C has too much sway over title policy in the last 5 years, being the most active editor on the policy page and its talk page. This essay that supports his relentless drive toward minimalist and algorithmic titling causes a lot of trouble, and is not supported by the community. Delete it or move it back to his user pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff: The funny thing is that I'm frequently accused of being something akin to relentlessly driving toward algorithmic titling, and even I can't support this stuff. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page existed long before I started editing it. It originated as a policy change proposal by WDGraham in 2006, was quickly archived two weeks after creation, and I revived it as an essay last year, and only started making changes to it this year. Note that this is the definition of an WP:ESSAY:

Typically addresses some aspect of working in Wikipedia, but has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy by the community at large.

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays

And this was the nutshell back in 2006: "Page titles should only disambiguate where there are other articles with the same name. If a name is used for only one article, it should not contain a disambiguation in the title, even if similar pages do." [1] The essence of this remains the same today. Whether this idea has consensus support can be debated, except that would be irrelevant, since essays are not supposed to necessarily represent consensus opinion anyway. Essays should not be deleted, or even nominated for deletion, just because you disagree with what they say.

Notice that the nom makes an outlandish claim, "... one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other [[WP:CRITERIA])", without a single shred of evidence that I or, or more pertinently, this essay, actually does this. In fact, this claim directly contradicts what the essay says (making me wonder if the nom has even seriously read it). But even if it said that, it would not be grounds to delete it. It would be grounds to write a rebuttal essay.

In the eight months since I started making revisions and improvements to this essay, several other editors have contributed as well, including: BDD, ~~Dicklyon~~, BarrelProof, SmokeyJoe, and, most recently (making 7 revisions I have yet to review), 174.141.182.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Finally, countless editors have made hundreds of links to this essay[2]. Perhaps what the opposers really don't like is when this essay is used in title decisions that are contrary to their preferences? --В²C ☎ 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC) struck Dicklyon - see below. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit – listing me as an editor of the essay is really quite disingenuous, since you reverted each of my edits. It is obviously your own essay. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just listed everyone in the revision history this year. I'll strike your name. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, IP 174...'s edits were pure gnoming, enforcement of conciseness (ironically enough), linking, and raising a talk page issue; that editor explicitly stated in edit summary that they disagreed with the proposal and so shouldn't be taken as supporting or advancing it. BarrelProof's edits are also gnoming. BDD did nothing at all but add a tag. I have~~n't~~ reviewed every single other editor's changes to the page, but ~~most of them so far~~ all of them do appear to be either gnoming/cleaning, or attempts to make the page stop contradicting actual policy and community consensus (and such changes are usually either reverted by B2C or effectively undone with later edits by B2C that obscure and weaken the changes). It must also be noted that most editors are critical of the essay/proposal on its talk page, including 174..., and SmokeyJoe, who's already said "should be userfied (or deleted if he doesn't want it), but requires a history split to restore the 2006 version". BDD and BarrelProof did not comment there. Virtually no one supports it there at all, and the entire idea of misinterpreting WP:AT's disambiguation policy in this way is routinely ignored at both WT:AT and in WP:RM discussions. While the nom's summary of this proposal/essay, "absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA", isn't 100% accurate, it's close enough; the page's problem is that gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits as well. My edits should not be construed as endorsing the essay (or expressing any particular opinion about it, really, as I have not really made up my mind about that). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the page "gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc", I think you're misreading it. What statements in the essay actually support that viewpoint? If you can find any, and identify them, I will happily edit or remove them myself. --В²C ☎ 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted yourself, at your comment here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User-space it, without redirect, and delete 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.[3] 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:
1. Born2cycle usurped and erased a historical proposal that was tagged as such. The previously closing admin said "If you wish to revive this, please advertise at the village pump" (as did the {{Historical}} tag on it), but Born2cycle did not, instead expanding it in ways that have even less support, and tagging it with {{Essay}}. After userspacing, please history-split it so that the original proposal[4] is put back at this page name; it's important to keep on record just how long this "conciseness above all other concerns" nonsense has been rejected.
2. It is far too easily and often confused with some kind of policy or other rule, and its author cites it that way (with shortcuts like WP:UNDAB), but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
3. 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:Unnecessary disambiguation". Instead it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall about why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
4. 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., see above about reverting all edits by DickLyon, then trying to claim him as a coauthor in support of it not being essentially a one-person show).
5. Much of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written in what-if form 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.
6. 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 tagged {{Historical}} (which is essentially equivalent) once[5], and attempting to revive a proposal without advertising it as one (indeed, hiding it behind an essay tag) doesn't make it magically un-rejected.
7. 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 Wikipedia:Concision razor (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
The place to change article titling policy on disambiguation is in consensus discussions at WT:AT, where Born2cycle has already floated this idea and had it shot down. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a longstanding page expressing an important principle that has generally been held, even though it doesn't seem to be stated elsewhere. If B2C has taken it too far, pare it down. It should not, by any means, be deleted, or even userfied, really. This is not a fringe view. --BDD (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @BDD: Does the original, historical essay suffice? Those asking to delete or userfy B2C’s essay are also asking to split and keep the original. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User-space without redirect, or revert the user’s changes over the past year. Born2cycle has expanded and altered the essay so as to redefine terms and rules in a way that does not reflect community consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE specify something the essay actually says - a direct quote - that contradicts policy, guidelines or conventions. My intent was never to write a single word that contradicted consensus. If it does, it needs to be fixed. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a difference between reflecting consensus and not directly contradicting consensus. I have no doubt that what you added reflects your interpretation of consensus, but I do not believe that that is an accurate interpretation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that would be imposing a requirement on this essay that is not imposed on any other essay. Essays are not required to reflect your interpretation of consensus - they can reflect anyone's interpretation, including mine. --В²C ☎ 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user-space, per SMcCandlish, 174.141.182.82, et al. As before with Born2cycle's "Yogurt Principle" essay, the problems rightly identified here are best solved by moving the piece from project-space to user-space where it more appropriately belongs. The essay as it now stands is largely a vehicle for the opinions and goals of its single dominant editor, and in various ways it does not square well with established community consensus elsewhere; per WP:ESSAYS, WP:NOESSAY, etc., userfication is preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per SMcCandlish, Huw and others. Omnedon (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Someone with more time than I have, please go though UNDAB, and quote some places where it conflicts with policy, quote the policy, and move on. B2C is simply going to keep demanding these quotations (he's even come to my talk page to demand them), and I'm out of energy due to other teapots of wikidrama today. No one else here seems even faintly unable to tell what the problems are in this "propessay" without cutting parts of it out and pasting them right here to look at them again out of context, like taking the wheels off a car to understand if they're flat or not, but whatever. Anything to put a cork in it. PS: It's faintly possible that policy problems with the page could actually be resolved this way, by threat of deletion or user-spacing breaking B2C's WP:OWN hold on the material. B2C espouses willingness to fix whatever problems are raised (though that leads to the questions "why not earlier, and why would B2C be the one to fix the problems instead of everyone else doing so and B3C not reverting or undermining their changes again?). Even if perhaps-salvageable things from the other page, the WP:Concision razor one, were merged in and the two made into a single "concise disambiguations" page that wasn't a one-person show, I'm skeptical that it'll say anything useful that can't already be gleaned from policy and guidelines on titles and disambiguation, since most of both pages' content is just Good B2C arguing against straw men with Evil B2C. But there may be no harm in trying. That said, there's also no reason at all not to user-space both of these, then see if something can be salvaged and proposed properly from them later (preferably by someone else). The main concern is that B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda, and wants something that says so, with a rule-like name and catchy WP:XXXXX shortcut, to self-cite, which sounds like it's a guideline and gets other people to treat it like one. That's not a permissible result, because it doesn't reflect consensus. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SMcCandlish, I'm going to ask you one more time. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Here you did it as, " B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda". I understand that this is genuinely your impression. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. Never-the-less, I assure you you are mistaken. This is a quote from WP:Concision razor:

If two titles are equally good at identifying the subject, then the shorter one is preferred.

You seem to ignore the bold part. If you are not going to take the time to learn that you are wrong about your impression about my "agenda", or prove that I am wrong, then please have the decency to not opine on this matter. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring it all all, though. It simply isn't true. Any number of other criteria may lead us to prefer a somewhat longer name, and everyone undestands this here except you. This goes for choosing a base title to begin with, deciding whether to disambiguate, and how to disambiguate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are ignoring the part in bold. Or misunderstanding it. If some criteria leads you to prefer one title over the other, then they are not "equally good at identifying the subject". The, "equally good at identifying the subject" phrase is BD2412's quoted words. The more general version is in the nutshell:

If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred.

--В²C ☎ 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of equivocation; you can't change the terms under discussion and then claim that the other party was misinterpreting. The new version still isn't true. Your change doesn't fix any problem, and introduces an error (of where in the process this page's logic would be applied). Remember that this is about conciseness in disambiguation, not about general conciseness in article titles. Once we get to the disambiguation part, we've already gone through the WP:CRITERIA analysis, so mentioning CRITERIA again is a non sequitur). As it turns out, it's still often the case that we do not use the shortest possible name, but add something that you would like to characterize as an unnecessary disambiguator, and on top of that it's not necessarily the shortest possible one, but whatever makes the most sense in the total context of the decision. We may do this for clarity, for consistency, or for some other reason. I decline to play any more of your WP:IDHT games. The proposal/essay's own talk page more than adequately covers UNDAB's faults, as does the commentary on this page, and your repeated demands for re-re-re-explanation, so you can declare those arguments "too vague" and post another pile of regurgitated defensiveness, is just a FUD tactic, and attempt to mire this MfD in text walls. The issue with this page are general, not matters of tweaking any particular line, and badgering us for quotes you can argue incessantly about isn't going to change that. While I appreciate more than most do some attempts to formalize and be "algorithmic" about titles, there are limits to the usefulness of such an approach, and this "propessay" goes far beyond them. Or to put it another way, if even I'm not buying it, virtually no one will (nor has, demonstrably). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about distinguishing disambiguator selection from title selection, and that CRITERIA applies only to the latter - that distinction is often not made when it should be, not just in this essay. But that's a reason for improving it, not deleting it or userfying it. I'm confident that these essays could be significantly improved with more of your input (and that of others). Thank you. --В²C ☎ 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the community decides the idea has merit, we'll collectively integrate it into WP:AT. There's no need to have a proposal/essay you control as the home for such an idea. Your over-control of these pages is their principal downfall, because "more of [my] input (and that of others)" is generally not ever acceptable to you. You seem to feel that people are misunderstanding you and being mean to you, but we're not. If everyone were seeking deletion of these pages, it might actually look like that. We're just observing that you effectively own them, and the proper place for essay pages controlled by one user is their userspace. It's not a value judgement against you [or them]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read the essay several times, and I simply can't see as much that directly contradicts policy as some have claimed above. I do wonder if those who have clashed with В²C elsewhere are reading into the essay things that aren't there. Yes, there's definitely a part here which over-emphasises conciseness. For example, this statement is overgeneral for an essay supposedly about unnecessary disambiguation: But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever. The reason not to accept unnecessary disambiguation is precisely that it's unnecessary, not primarily conciseness. The examples at WP:CONCISE correctly illustrate choices between titles which don't have other factors operating – using conciseness as a criterion to choose between disambiguated and undisambiguated names just muddies the issue. I think the essay could quite easily be fixed, so long as В²C accepts that it's about unnecessary disambiguation and not conciseness. Most of it is both clear and useful as an explanation of disambiguation. On the other hand, if В²C insists on retaining his views on conciseness then the essay should be moved into user space. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I don't see anything that contradicts policy (or guidelines or conventions) in the essay either - and I keep asking for it to be pointed out[6]. This is exactly the kind of constructive commentary necessary to improve this essay (any essay, really). The essay's talk page does not have much of this, unfortunately. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter: For my own part, I agree that the problem really isn't about direct contradiction of policy, but rather about contradiction (or perhaps I should say misrepresentation) of what is and is not supported by consensus, something that WP:NOESSAY warns against in project-space essays. It's troubling that the piece seems to have become a vehicle for certain views that are not supported by consensus (and indeed have been quite controversial, like the so-called "concision razor", the assertion that B2C's preferred titling approach will put an end to disputes, etc.), yet which are presented in such a way that the reader may not understand that this is so. Co-opting a project-space essay to lobby against established consensus is also frowned upon, so things like opining against the "unfortunate" USPLACE convention (to take an example) add to the concerns.
  Userfication seems like the easiest and best course in this case: it would allow B2C to continue exercising ownership and for his text to persist. Leaving it in project-space and trying to refactor it would I think be more difficult, both because of the apparent ownership problems but also because the essay's become sufficiently overgrown with his own non-consensus views that pruning it might be somewhat challenging. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So many words and nothing at all substantive about what the essay actually says that qualifies it to be userfied per WP:NOESSAY. I note that the 3rd bullet of WP:NOESSAY references (the only that even has a remote chance of applying in this case), "Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages." This essay does not overtly nor covertly contradict policy. It does not intend to undermine or even disagree with policy. It intends to clarify what is meant by a commonly used term on WP talk pages - "unnecessary disambiguation" - in a manner that is consistent with and supports not only policy, but also guidelines and conventions established through actual titling. To the extent that it fails to do this, that needs to be identified and fixed. But these guys can't even identify what those aspects are for the purpose of correction, let alone to justify deletion.
    Well, Huwman does mention the reference to the USPLACE convention as "unfortunate". That hints at disagreement, to be sure, but hardly rises to the level of overtly contradicting policy. Anyway, that's one word which can be easily deleted, if that's really the issue here.
    Opaque references to alleged "non-consensus views" are not helpful. --В²C ☎ 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - From what the majority of involved editors have said, your additions to the essay, and your use of it, undermine consensus (though possibly without intent… even though multiple people keep pointing it out). What you present—what you push—as consensus is not consensus. In fact, it sometimes seems like you want people to forget about reaching their own consensus in favor of your methods, which actually undermines WP:Consensus now that I think about it. That is the core problem here, as I understand it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but such vagueness is just not helpful. What are the specifics? What specifically does the essay say that "undermines" consensus, and how does it do that? I think they are misreading or misunderstanding. It's probably not clearly expressed. That can be fixed.
        There are maybe 5-10 editors who routinely disagree with me on a few issues and keep showing up in discussions in which I'm involved. That same group of 5-10 hardly makes a consensus on any issue. In some discussions their view prevails, in others mine does. Worse, as far as I can tell, based on how they characterize what they think my position is, the disagreement is mostly based on misunderstanding. Then they express their disagreement with me in efforts like this. Anyway, justified or not, this is supposed to be about the merits of WP:UNDAB and whether it should be deleted or userfied per WP:NOESSAY; it's not supposed to be about "my methods". --В²C ☎ 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's really happening is that all of the most active editors involved in the policies and guidelines that cover article titles, naming and disambiguation (and style) routinely disagree with you, and when they're the bulk of the participants, with the best arguments, in a site-wide page like MfD, yes they do form consensus. It's not a conspiracy of random editors who don't like you, it a consensus of regular editors in a WP-internal topic area against the changes to article titling policy that you're advancing.

Detailed analysis

It's like you've gone to a night club and done things that trigger the DJs, the bartenders, the servers, the bouncer and the coat-check clerk to all suggest you're being inappropriate and disruptive. Then you come back the next week and do it all again, and again, and again, for months, years even, because you're convinced that your way is best, then you claim there's a conspiracy of these completely random people ruining your fun and repeatedly kicking you out just because they don't like you. You're totally misapprehending the situation. The other editors who most care about and are most involved in the internal topic area you're trying to change, pretty much unanimously aren't buying what you're selling. They're not mean people out to personally get you. I actually frequently agree with you on different MOS and AT/NC/DAB matters, and so do most of the other participants here.

These people do make a consensus when they're the ones, in a site-wide venue like MfD or WT:AT (contrast this with insular wikiproject pages, which tend to trigger WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems), who provide the most common-sense, consensus-based, and policy-grounded input. The entire point of your "Yoghurt principle" essay being user-spaced was that it was advancing a backwardly contrarian and demonstrably incorrect view of how consensus is determined, namely your belief that consensus is not determined in the discussion at hand, but only by reference to the sum total of all previous discussions that could be considered relevant. And you've clearly learned nothing from the rejection of this, since you're making the same argument here.

At some point you just have to stop this dead-horse beating. This constant pushing, in multiple venues, of your conciseness ideas as if they were consensus-accepted Wikipedian principles, while they denigrate actual consensuses like the US place-naming convention, and contradict how we actually name and disambiguate things, would appear to be both tendentiousness and forum shopping as defined at those pages. There's probably not even one editor on the system who prefers every single aspect of naming and styling policies and guidelines; that's the nature of consensus-building, a compromise process. There are any number of things I detest in both sets of rules, but I have to live with them because they're just the house rules, many of them change slowly or not at all, and it's more important for the project that it operate smoothly than that I get my preferred way. You have to concede this yourself or you're never going to be a contented editor here, and always putting yourself in a "me vs. the conspiracy" perceptual cage.

PS: Your constant demand for out-of-context quotes to pick at is missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't some line in the proposal/essay you can fix, is the entire nature of it and how you're going about it. Just the fact that you're talking about you personally going in and changing stuff to try to fix problems with this page, if only we'll tell you what lines to edit, is indicative of the very problem: This is your page, and you will never stop being the gatekeeper, so let's user-space it to make that clear.

I want to draw a close and instructive parallel here:

The Tale of MOS:ICONS

I, too, usurped a dead proposal and rewrote it. But after I had plenty of formative input on it, compromised with the push-back of others with different views (something you are extremely resistant to ever doing), and it had enough of an interested editing pool to grow on its own, I just walked away, and have barely edited it since, trusting the community the develop it. And it did; today it is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. The key to it succeeding instead of failing as a proposal (and many wanted it to fail at first, because WP was kind of "addicted" to festooning articles with cutesy, pointless little pictograms) was letting it go.

Unfortunately we're past that point with this page. No one appears convinced this can be salvaged as a project-space page, even if you were abducted by aliens and never heard from again, probably because the underlying idea just conflicts with actual practice in too many places.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This enunciates a useful principal, and issues with the wording can be fixed. Per my recent comment on the article talk page, if the city in France is the primary topic of Paris, then the page does not need to be at Paris, France - and even though the city in Texas is not the primary topic of that term, we put it at Paris, Texas, not at Paris, Lamar County, Texas. The latter is not inaccurate and is definitely more precise, but is unnecessary. Similarly, we use Mercury (mythology) rather than Mercury (Roman mythology) or Mercury (mythological god); and we use Mercury (planet), not Mercury (Solar System planet). This proposition, correctly understood, should not be controversial. bd2412 T 01:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful about saying what's "unnecessary": that which is technically unnecessary may not really be unnecessary at all — that can only be determined by considering all the article titling criteria, as WP:AT instructs. To take your example of Paris, Lamar County, Texas, yes, the community consensus is that that form is indeed unnecessary in that case; however, in the case of (say) Judyville, Indiana, while it's technically unnecessary to append the state for the purpose of achieving a unique article title, the community has determined that it's nonetheless necessary to include the state in the interests of achieving the best title (in this case one that's preferable to simply Judyville).

The distinction is important — but the essay blurs it. In the lede it does define the subject very specifically as only disambiguation or precision that's unnecessary for the technical reason that Wikipedia requires unique article titles, but then strongly suggests through various subsequent straw-man arguments that such technical requirements are the only sound reason for such disambiguation/precision, thus deprecating all non-technical reasons (such as reflecting common usage, as in what the essay tellingly calls the "unfortunate" USPLACE convention). That may be the approach Born2cycle favors, but there's no consensus support for it. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Move to WP:Unnecessary precision and edit the page accordingly, if it is determined that the essay can stay in project space. The page isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about a disambiguation matter, because truly “unnecessary” disambiguation is not disambiguation at all; it’s about a precision matter, and we should set about correcting that confusing terminology. That’s what I see in the essay, at least. What do you all think? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a real bad idea. The essay is about B2C's concept of unnecessary disambiguation, which conflicts with what many see as necessary precision. An essay un unnecessary precision would be a completely different thing; it one wanted one, one would start over. It's too bad you made that inappropriate redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn’t even realize B2C made that redirect ~~ten days~~ four months ago. But yeah, under that name it would need to be rewritten, in part or in whole. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made that redirect 4 months ago on April 10, not on August 10. --В²C ☎ 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, removing the redirects This is 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. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if the rule said: "If two titles are equally helpful to readers, we should go with the shorter one"? bd2412 T 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of our titles could be made more helpful to readers, arguably, by making them more descriptive. I list a few examples of titles at User:Born2cycle#Examples_of_naming_consistency that could arguably be more helpful in this way, but are not. For example, even though we have Haren, Belgium, another district of Brussels is at Laeken. Why? Because putting the latter at Laeken, Belgium would be considered unnecessary disambiguation (as opposed to Haren, Belgium which is considered necessary disambiguation because of Haren, Groningen, Haren, Germany, etc., see Haren). This is what we actually do on Wikipedia, and all this page is trying to do is describe what we actually do, and why. So we don't go with the shorter one only when the two titles are equally helpful to readers; we usually go with the shorter one even when the longer one would be considered more helpful. That's true for almost every title, because almost every title could be made more helpful by adding description to it and thus making it longer. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you’re describing here is unnecessary precision, rather than any sort of disambiguation. If you disagree, then what is “Laeken, Belgium” unnecessarily being disambiguated from? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that IF Laeken was ambiguous, then Laeken, Belgium would be an appropriate and necessary disambiguation. But since it's not ambiguous, disambiguation is not necessary, and, so, Laeken, Belgium is commonly referred to as unnecessary disambiguation. Again, I did not invent this terminology. I see your point. I agree it's not perfect. But please don't shoot the messenger. This is how it is used on WP. I didn't invent "inflammable" to mean "flammable" either. Similarly, and a bit less problematic semantically, even though "Paris" is ambiguous, Paris, France is unnecessary disambiguation, because Paris is considered to be the primary topic for "Paris".
Just to clarify your position, since there are other uses of Paris and The Sting (e.g., The Sting (The Office)), do you accept use of the term "unnecessary disambiguation" with respect to Paris, France and The Sting (film)? --В²C ☎ 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; since Paris covers the term’s primary topic and it’s widely known outside of France, disambiguating with extra precision is unnecessary disambiguation. I can’t speak to the primary topic of “The Sting.” And you’re not merely a messenger, you have been a promoter of the confusing out-of-context terminology. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I see the out-of-context problem you're talking about, but we have a difference of opinion about its significance. I think it's semantic nit-picking to insist on a literal interpretation when that's clearly not what is intended. But, in general, I rarely object to how others use language. Instead, I try to understand what they mean, regardless of what words they're using, and go from there. Others tend to insist on interpreting how others use language however they (the reader) thinks it "should" be interpreted. The latter, I believe, is the source of a lot of unnecessary disagreement. In any case, I think the usage of "unnecessary disambiguation" in this context (where the term in question is not ambiguous) is appropriate and helpful to discuss in an essay about "unnecessary disambiguation", but I agree it could and should be presented more neutrally than I had in there. But, again, we're talking about reasons for revising, not reasons for deleting or userfying. --В²C ☎ 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have different views on language. You think it’s the reader’s responsibility to accurately interpret the writer’s intended message in text over the internet, regardless of whether the two agree on the meaning of the words used; I think it’s the writer’s responsibility to use words to mean things that they are generally accepted to mean, to ensure that the reader will accurately interpret the message. The former approach invites miscommunication—an all-too-common source of disagreements. The latter insures against it. Besides, where better to combat an apparently pervasive misnomer than in an essay that’s frequently cited by those who use it? (Assuming of course that a significant number of people do cite it, and that the essay doesn’t get userfied/deleted.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we have different views on language. I observe that from the dawn of civilization, usage has determined definitions, not the other way around. The way dictionary editors decide what to add or modify in their dictionaries is by looking at how people are using the terms in question; they don't dictate what the meanings are based on what they think they should mean. And, they're always necessarily behind. That is, people are always using words in ways that are not yet defined in the dictionary. And if dictionary editors don't dictate to users what words "should" mean; other users certainly shouldn't either. I mean, I agree it's better to try to use words as they're commonly used in order to be understood; I get that. But at some point you have to allow "ain't" (or whatever) into the language no matter how much you avoid using it and how much you cringe when others do, because that's what people use.
It seems reasonable and logical to apply that tried and true approach to semantics to our little world here on Wikipedia where the community has been using the term "unnecessary disambiguation" for at least a decade, as near as I can tell. Like dictionary editors it's incumbent upon us not to decide what the term should mean, but to determine what it does mean by the people who are using it, and reflect that in our definition/explanation (which is what this is, or strives to be). This approach is also in step with WP generally being governed bottom-up rather than top-down, and WP decisions generally being based on usage. --В²C ☎ 02:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said, “it’s the writer’s responsibility to use words in ways that they are generally accepted to be used.” Same meaning. But I’m glad we at least agree on how dictionaries are built. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and here on WP the particular term "unnecessary disambiguation" is generally accepted to be used to refer to titles with more precision in them than is necessary for disambiguation from other uses on Wikipedia, so it is the writer's responsibility to use "unnecessary disambiguation" in that way. For example, if you insist on your preferred restrictive definition, which (correct me if I'm wrong) applies only if the topic of the article in question has a name which is ambiguous, the topic primary for that name, and yet the title is comprised of the name plus additional precision for the purpose of disambiguation, then many of the entries in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation should not be there.
To take one example near the top at random, consider Airscoot (1947). Airscoot is not ambiguous (by either definition of "ambiguous"), and yet Airscoot (1947) is considered "unnecessary disambiguation". How does a user make sense of that if it is not explained somewhere, like here? Look at the history there[7]. Gorobay moved Airscoot (1947) to Airscoot, which of course made Airscoot (1947) a redirect to Airscoot, and then added the "Redirect from unnecessary disambiguation" tag to it[8]. You might not like it, but this is how the term and concept is used on WP. I didn't make it up. You can find countless other examples in that category. This version is particularly interesting, because it contains this description of the category: "This category is for redirects that contain unnecessary disambiguation qualifiers (e.g. Past Masters (The Beatles albums) redirects to Past Masters)", which directly supports my position here: the way "unnecessary disambiguation" is commonly used on WP is to refer to titles that have "disambiguation qualifiers" (usually parenthetic) which are not necessary to disambiguate the name of the topic from other uses on WP, regardless of whether that use is ambiguous. You can't deny this fact. And it's misleading to say otherwise in this essay.
Many supporters of deleting or userfying here have been claiming that this essay clearly opposes consensus somehow, but they are unable to explain how it does that (beyond a few easily rectifiable errors). My counter-claim is that it simply (okay maybe not as simply as it could) and (more importantly) accurately reflects actual usage of the term "Unnecessary disambiguation" on WP, and no one can refute this; certainly not with evidence from actual usage, which is all that matters with regard to establishing the veracity of my counter-claim, and demonstrating the flaccidity of the position claiming this essay is contrary to consensus. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“your preferred restrictive definition, which (correct me if I'm wrong) applies only if the topic of the article in question has—” Wrong. It applies if and only if the intent was to disambiguate, if it was an actual attempts at disambiguation. If nothing exists to disambiguate from, then this was most likely not the case and there was probably some other reason for the extra precision. That is my position on the phrasing, and I thought I had clearly stated it. Hopefully I have just done so. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't necessarily glean intent from an edit, but we can tell what a disambiguated title looks like. If someone wants to move an article like the uniquely titles Gertrude Tuckwell to Gertrude M. Tuckwell or Gertrude Tuckwell (author), it sure looks like they are trying to disambiguate it, and that would be unnecessary disambiguation, since it is unique. bd2412 T 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I saw the already uniquely-titled Gertrude Tuckwell move to Gertrude M. Tuckwell, I'd likely assume that it was to reflect some kind of common usage (like Ursula K. Le Guin, James T. Kirk, Ulysses S. Grant, etc.), not that it was for disambiguation. However, I agree that trailing parentheticals would more likely be disambiguatory. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a reasonable assumption, but wouldn't the next step be to investigate whether Gertrude M. Tuckwell was in fact the subject's common name? If it turns out that it is no more common than Gertrude Tuckwell, wouldn't that make the page move ill-advised? bd2412 T 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cannot say that such a move must necessarily be ill-advised; that judgment rests with the community who consider and determine how to weight all relevant factors. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Many supporters of deleting or userfying here have been claiming that this essay clearly opposes consensus somehow, but they are unable to explain how it does that ... demonstrating the flaccidity of the position claiming this essay is contrary to consensus." We're clearly addressing, throughout, multiple ways this conflicts with consensus, and even why your "I can fix a few lines" approach to the whole issue is itself indicative of some of what the problem is. Your refusal to acknowledge these arguments, pretending that they haven't been made, is a WP:IDHT game, which (to borrow from and mock your malfunctional manhood metaphors) smacks of impotent desperation. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The more I examine the essay, the more I find that's troubling. As-is it undermines the consensus-building mandated by Wikipedia:Article titles:
The policy's criteria section calls for editors to follow community consensus on how to balance the five characteristics of a good article title, and where there is no clear consensus it says that a new consensus should be established through discussion. However, the essay instructs otherwise: "One might suggest that consensus can decide in such cases what is the best balance of all the factors, including balancing concision and how descriptive the title is, but such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation, and can change any time anyone proposes a change. That suggests instability."
Is there any consensus support for the notion that following consensus causes instability, of for amending WP:AT to drop the consensus-building in favor of B2C's own controversial consision razor? (Even if limited to so-called "tie-breaks"?) Particularly in a project-space essay this is concerning. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are conflating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The quoted text is referring to the latter; you're misreading it if you think it's saying that following WP:CONSENSUS causes instability. But thanks for identifying a section that needs improvement for clarity! --В²C ☎ 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement for clarity indeed: as it stands, I don't see your essay making that distinction. The instruction cited from WP:CRITERIA addresses the situation where editors trying to title an article are determining how to apply the criteria. This is the situation the essay refers to, is it not? The essay's instruction, particularly in cases where the criteria are otherwise largely balanced, is to instead use the controversial "concision razor" rather than relying on consensus-building. AFAIK there's very little support for that idea.

That said, if the essay remains in project space (which seems increasingly problematic), then yes, this is yet another piece of it which would need either significant alteration or complete excision in order not to mislead the reader... and given the ownership issues that have already been identified, I fear that might be a challenge. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that WP:OWN issues could be countered by introducing proposed changes on the talk page for the essay and obtaining consensus to implement them. Changes would then undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the community. bd2412 T 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the essay remains, perhaps it would be best to revert to an early version and then build on it (or not) by consensus from the start. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the essay as it stands has been shown to be contrary to community consensus. Just because a few vocal editors who strongly believe that WP would be improved with more descriptive titles find this essay to be a hindrance to their efforts does not mean it is contrary to consensus. Whether this essay is consistent or contrary to community consensus should be measured by comparing what it says to how the term "Unnecessary disambiguation" is actually used by editors on WP, like, for example, in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. There is certainly room for improving the essay, and all efforts to that end manifested as either direct edits or talk page suggestions and proposals are appreciated, but reverting back to some arbitrary earlier version, especially without identifying anything that's actually wrong or misleading or unhelpful about the changes since that version, would not be constructive. --В²C ☎ 17:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

174.141.182.82: Userfication seems best for several reasons (not least because it would allow B2C to retain what he's written), but yes, if it does remain in project-space then I agree that your suggestion of rebuilding from an earlier version is best. As others have already noted, the issues here run deeper than just a few problematic lines, and a fresh start might make it more likely that it could regrow in a way that better reflects consensus and policy. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have made a number of claims along the lines of "issues here run deeper than just a few problematic lines", but these claims are totally and completely unsubstantiated. Every single person who has made such a claim coincidentally disagrees with how the term "unnecessary disambiguation" is commonly and long used on WP - that's what this MfD is really about. --В²C ☎ 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that’s the case. Sure, that’s one aspect of it for some editors (or possibly mostly only me [I should probably stop bringing that up here]); but multiple established editors have made claims of underlying issues, such as subtle undermining, straw-man arguments, etc., and it honestly seems to me like you’re in a cycle of acknowledging that there are foundational problems that can be “fixed” with a bit of spackle and then denying that real problems have been raised. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if any of the cited and countered common objections to the UNDAB concept in the essay were straw men, so what? At worst they would be potential theoretical objections that are nipped in the bud. Where is the harm in that? So what if nobody ever actually made those objections? Ignore them. Not applicable. Problem solved. That said, I didn't make these up. They are all paraphrases if not literal duplications of arguments that have actually been made, akin to those presented in the more general Wikipedia:Replies to common objections (I note that none of those have citations proving they're not straw men - again my work is being held to a standard that no other essay is expected to meet). But these "straw man" objections to this essay are very vague - nobody has yet said, such-and-such specific argument is a straw man. And the "subtle undermining" claim is even vaguer. Nobody has argued anything of the following form: The essay says X; this means Y which undermines policy P because B. They're all just vague and empty claims. Again, I don't doubt that the people making the claims believe they are true, but that's not evidence, especially considering the strong views and history of disputes involved in this soup. Most of these people really believe the views expressed in this essay are contrary to consensus. I strongly dispute that notion - I think it accurately reflects consensus. The burden is on them to show how it's contrary. The dearth of specificity in the objections to this essay are telling.

Three days ago SMcCandlish made this request: "Someone with more time than I have, please go though UNDAB, and quote some places where it conflicts with policy, quote the policy, and move on." First, it shouldn't take very much time to do that, if there really was a problem. Second, nobody has done that. That too is telling. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is a current direct reference to WP:UNDAB in an unambiguous context: Florence May Chadwick → Florence Chadwick. DeistCosmos cited WP:CONCISE as well as WP:UNDAB in their !vote comment. Also, the nom, MelanieN, states: "The middle name is not needed for disambiguation since there is no other Florence Chadwick". Last I checked "not needed" was a synonym for "unnecessary", and, so, in other words, Melanie is saying "Florence May Chadwick" is "unnecessary disambiguation", because "Florence Chadwick" is not ambiguous. This essay accurately describes how the term is used today on WP, and how it has been used for years. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C ☎ 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, why are you dragging my name in here? The reason for my move proposal is that Florence May Chadwick is not the name she is known by; she is known as Florence Chadwick. Basically I am basing my move request entirely on Common Name. If she was commonly known by all three names (see Louisa May Alcott), then I would be arguing for the middle name to stay. My reference to disambiguation, that you so gleefully quoted, was just to point out that DAB was not the reason for the undiscussed move from Florence Chadwick to Florence May Chadwick some years ago. It has nothing to do with your endless quest for shorter titles, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to drag me into your eternal arguments. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so misunderstood (not blaming anyone but myself for that). I am NOT on a quest for shorter titles!!! Please see my !vote at Talk:Florence May Chadwick. I agree with you 100% (and I wrote that before I saw your comment here). I "dragged" your name here because I quoted you. I quoted you because you gave a recent example of referring to extra stuff in a title as "not needed for disambiguation" (which essentially means "unnecessary disambiguation"), countering claims above that since the longer form is not disambiguation it's nonsensical to refer to it as unnecessary, "not needed" or any kind of disambiguation (since it's not disambiguation). Nonsensical or not, it is accepted usage on WP. --В²C ☎ 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, B2C; you misunderstood. You quoted someone saying that some bit of text was unnecessary for disambiguation. I have drawn this distinction before. You have replied to it before. Why are we here again now? I’ll lay it out as explicitly as I can, and then I’m done discussing that term in this MFD:

Calling something “unnecessary for disambiguation” means that whatever bit of text is not useful in a disambiguatory capacity, regardless of whether the subject may or may not need to be otherwise disambiguated from another, and regardless of whether that bit of text may be useful in some other capacity. It may mean that the bit of text was added for disambiguation which is not necessary, e.g. Apple (fruit). It may mean that the bit of text was not there for disambiguation at all, e.g. Florence May Chadwick.
Calling something “unnecessary disambiguation” implies that it is disambiguating the subject from something with which it is ambiguous, and if this is not the case, it’s disingenuous. The word “fruit” in Apple (fruit) unnecessarily disambiguates the primary topic from other uses. The “May” in Florence May Chadwick does not disambiguate it from anything and in fact has nothing to do with ambiguity. The word “for” in “‘May’ is unnecessary for disambiguation” is not unnecessary, and eschewing it renders your claim ambiguous by substituting a more inappropriately precise term. If you don’t like being misunderstood, start there. Ditto if you don’t like being blamed for its confusing misuse when you do it constantly and included a section confusingly defending it in an essay you named after it.

This conversation is making me feel like you’re either not reading or not mentally acknowledging what you’re responding to… particularly when your response to “that term isn’t the main concern” is yet more defense of the term, and with a quote that you apparently deliberately misinterpret… anyway, I’m done with this tangential subject here, it belongs on user Talk pages or the essay’s Talk. And apologies in advance if I sound hostile and for using bigger words than usual; I need sleep. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Unnecessary disambiguation § “Unnecessary disambiguation” vs “unnecessary for disambiguation”

Observe this persistent pattern of B2c's, of always insisting that everyone else is misinterpreting or misunderstanding him, in debate after debate, coupled with repeated demands for quotations from his material and analysis of how those quotations are problematic (demands that continue even after he's already received both). It's a repetitive, transparent handwave tactic. Asserting again and again that his points have not been addressed does not actually make them unaddressed, or even valid to begin with. The very fact that, according to him, everyone is simply not understanding this proposal/essay and it's close relative at MfD, is actually reason enough to userspace them; they serve no purpose in project namespace if they are confusing to the point of meaninglessness to everyone but their author. If any consensus actually existed as to the conciseness thrust of either of these "propessays", these points would already have been worked into WP:AT, which is quite precise and well-thought-out in how it balances all of the WP:CRITERIA. That fact that it does not address the points B2c is pushing so hard means, ispo facto, that his views do not represent a consensus on this. And these are not essays of the pro/con variety where mainspace can host conflicting views of an issue on which the community is divided; they're both written as, intended as, and cited by their author as, guidance/supplement essays telling editors (incorrectly) how to apply naming policies and in what order of primacy, contradicting how we actually do this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Note also that this "such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation" bit is simply B2c reintroducing his WP:YOGHURTRULE again, after it was already userspaced once. That's "asking the other parent", re-introducing a defeated proposal in hopes that the audience has changed enough that they won't notice that it's rehash. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History split(WP:HISTSPLIT). Versions to 14:02, 18 October 2006 should be restored as an historic failed proposal. Overwriting this failed proposal was entirely inappropriate.‎ Similarly, split the history of the talk page, first version to 19:03, 15 October 2006‎ from all subsequent versions.

Versions 1 July 2013 onwards: Userfy (or delete if the owner doesn't want it), as a disputed single author opinion. It is not an essay, but an single person's opinion, poorly expressed, trying to undermine good policy now that he finds himself unable to continue to surreptitiously alter policy. Wikipedia space essays are afforded a large degree of credibility, not appropriate to this. Contrary to the authors views, it is not appropriate for disagreeing individuals to add disagreeing opinions as essays in Wikipedia space. Individual opinions belong in userspace.

No other authors of the page support its retention in project space. Users BDD and BD2412 support, but their support would be more persuasive if they contributed to it, and accepted authorship of it. Note that userfication does not amount to a statement that the content is wrong (indeed, opinions are not wrong), just that it is an individual's expression. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at failed proposal. It was never proposed. It never failed. A proposal was drafted. Two weeks later it was archived. That's not a failed proposal. That's an archived draft of a potential proposal. In the mean time, the term "unnecessary disambiguation" (which people on WP commonly use to mean "unnecessary for disambiguation") and associated concept were and continue to be used. Regardless of what it means, we should explain it here. I think the current version is very close at worst. No one has shown otherwise. --В²C ☎ 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are plenty of essays in WP space with only one author. That's no reason to userfy. The number of people that reference an essay (and any redirect to it) tells you about community acceptance, not how many edit it. --В²C ☎ 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, it was never proposed? Yes, it was. And “failed” simply means it was not accepted. Regardless, you co-opted an archived proposal to explain your own views on the subject. So yeah, I’m in agreement with SmokeyJoe. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including shortcuts Re-writing essays to support one's own view at RMs is not exactly cricket. It was, at once stage, marked as "historical" anyway. Finally, the essay appears to contradict practice, if not guidelines. If anybody wants to userfy the article now is a good time. NB. I am not discussing this matter further here. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of references to WP:UNDAB, WP:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

It has been argued that since most of the editing to this essay is all from one editor (yours truly), it should be userfied. But single authorship is not a valid objection to an essay, per WP:NOESSAY. I suggest a more important characteristic than how many people edit an essay, is how many link to it, especially from article talk pages. So I present the follow evidence of WP editors linking to this essay, mostly to it in its current state, not in its 2006 archived draft form:

Article Talk pages that link to "Wikipedia:UNDAB" [9]
Article Talk pages that link to "Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation" [10]

Another salient fact is viewing statistics.

Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 18 times in 201312. [11]
Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 57 times in 201404. [12]
Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 119 times in 201407. [13]

These view counts are not atypical for supplemental policy essays, and certainly not low enough to warrant userfication. Consider:

Wikipedia:Naming_character_articles has been viewed 67 times in 201407. [14]

--В²C ☎ 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is unexpected for a page that an active editor in policy and move discussions links to at every opportunity… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and which is currently at MfD. Sure, there were 119 views in July while it is being discussed here and elsewhere - but only 34 in June and 25 in May. And a spot-check of a dozen links to WP:UNDAB finds only two editors using it: Skookum1 and B2C. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, this is August, not July, and this MFd was proposed on August 18, weeks after July ended, so you can't attribute the relatively high view count in July to this MfD. Not that it matters.

IP 174, most of my links were indirect through a template on my user page (User:Born2cycle/UD), and so are not counted in the link counts above. Most of those links are not from me, but are like this:

Support. Per WP:UNDAB. —seav (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that WP:UNDAB redirects to Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay with no more status that any other editor's views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am very much aware that this is an essay by B2C. However, the essay lays down a policy-based reasoning in support of the current move request. Rather than repeat this reasoning, I simply linked to the essay. —seav (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Or this[15]:

I'm not at all attached to the current title; Foo (bar) simply shouldn't redirect to Foo; it's unnecessary disambiguation. If you want to propose an alternative, I (probably) won't object. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Or this[16]:

Support - Removing the 2014 seems reasonable considering Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. NickCT (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Or this[17]:

Oppose on the grounds of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. Point raised by User:Born2cycle has valid point with reasoning. It was the same point I was getting across and it's its good to see that there are people out there who aren't narrow minded in understanding the point of which I initially raised whereby NO other 'mosque' or 'masjid' goes with the exact same name on Wikipedia thus Unnecessary disambiguation. George Howarth (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

--В²C ☎ 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These few people can cite your opinion more honestly if it is your userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And lots of user-spaced essays remain cited by others; the WP:GNG was a userspace essay for years. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is much more than B2C's opinion. It's a natural and logical extension of WP:CONCISE and WP:D. You can say B2C has more or less taken control of this page: that's true. But you can't pretend he invented the concept of unnecessary disambiguation: that's demonstrably false. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then he took it beyond a natural and logical extension, and kind of skewed it toward his personal philosophy of how Wikipedia should work. Like I said elsewhere, the core concept is not the problem. Hence the calls for a history split. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assessment, but even if is true it's an argument for revision - not deletion, userification nor even history split. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: If it’s userfied, there’s nothing stopping you from revising it and encouraging others to revise it while it’s in your userspace, and then proposing that it be properly adopted as a WP:essay or even a guideline once the issues are resolved and it’s more accepted by the community. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BDD. I just now see that you had replied to me. Yes, it is not just B2C's opinion, it is B2C's opinion on top of and beyond WP:CONCISE and WP:D. Why would anyone want to cite this page and not WP:CONCISE or WP:D? Because they want to cite B2C's opinion, the part that is on top of and beyond. Note the the page is not an interpretation of WP:CONCISE or WP:D, or an essay containing an analysis. Note that it does not "present opinion", but asserts opinion forcefully in the style of a rule. Like typical non-negotiable policy, such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it asserts actionable rules as if by fiat, not based on force of reason.

You may agree with what we can only surmise as B2C's opinion, that he thinks these rules should be policy and mandated for others to follow. If you did, you would say so at the relevant policy talk page. If at that policy talk page, you opinion were rejected, failing to persuaded few, is it then appropriate to create a ProjectSpace pseudo-policy document, something that newcomers may interpret as representing policy?

Certainly, no one may pretend that he invented the concept. The concept is there in the early history of the page, authored by WDGraham (talk · contribs). It failed to gain support, it looks like through lack of interest. It was written than as a proposal, tagged with {{proposed}}. As written clearly in the admin's edit summary: "not an active proposal at the moment. If you wish to revive this, please advertise at the village pump.". This is accepted practice. Overwriting failed proposals is disruptive, confusing the records.

Userfication of this page (the post-2006 versions) does not mean rejection of any contained premise, but recognition that it is a disputed single author opinion that belongs in its owner's userspace. I don't want it deleted, but as a technicality, once userfied, he may {{db-u1}} it at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements excerpted from the above are totally and completely unsubstantiated. There is no basis for them given here, on the essay's talk page, or anywhere else. As far as I can tell, they are utter nonsense, not connected with a single thing the essay actually says:

...it is B2C's opinion on top of and beyond WP:CONCISE and WP:D.
Note the the page is not an interpretation of WP:CONCISE or WP:D, or an essay containing an analysis.
Note that it does not "present opinion", but asserts opinion forcefully in the style of a rule.
it asserts actionable rules as if by fiat, not based on force of reason.

Even if they were substantiated with cited examples from the essay, I would be happy to address them. But that's for a discussion on the essay talk page, about how to improve it, not for an MfD. Now, if there was a history on the essay's talk page where these issues were raised, with substantiation, and nothing had been done for a long time to address them, that would be grounds for MfD. But that's not the case. --В²C ☎ 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These things are woven inextricably into the thesis. I don't feel motivated to spend time teaching you writing style, but as examples, try:

"Only disambiguate in cases of conflicting titles". This is a proposed rule. No attempt at balance.

"Title minimization (a.k.a. title succinctness or avoiding unnecessary precision in titles) is generally preferred to help us achieve the goal of reducing conflict about titles." This is an asserted fact, not based on reasoning. The sentences that follow it are disconnected statements, not forming a structured argument.

"On Wikipedia most titles are consistent with the idea that it is best to disambiguate only when necessary." The phrase "it is best to" is a bald assertion not based on anything preceding it.

In the end, the entire substance of the page is to present B2C's opinion, and the pretence of supporting evidence and arguments for the concluding opinion is fallacious.

Why this great fight to keep a single-author opinion in Project Space? I can't think of any other user to behave like this. My best guess is to give it some kind of fallacious authority. In userspace, unsuspicious editors will skim it at face value, but judge it on its merits. That would be appropriate. In project space, it is not an acceptable presentation of whatever it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that 50% of the quoted examples above, of others referring to the essay when commenting in RM discussions, are citations of it as if it were a policy or guideline, while only half are citing it as an essay that summarizes reasoning they agree with. That's a major part of why we're here at MfD with this thing. There seems to be about a 50% failure rate to understand that it's an opinion piece, not a policy supplement/interpretation backed by consensus. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

This "propessay" is actually usurping an already-used term in Wikipedia: It means the application of a disambiguator to an article title that indicates a topic that is already the primary topic and using the undisambiguated title. See, e.g., the {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} template. It is applied to cases like Krypton (element) where the real article is at Krypton.

Born2cycle is trying to expand the usage of this term to encompass any article title that could be shortened by removing or reducing disambiguation, even where there's already a consensus that doing so would not be helpful, as in the case of US placenames. In short, we already have consensus that some forms of disambiguation are needed, simply because the titles are ambiguous in in the original, general sense of that word, not because, in the internal-to-Wikipedia sense, they conflict with other actual articles.

This logically, inescapably means that B2c's use of "unnecessary" to describe such cases is simply wrong, because consensus has already determined them to be necessary. See for example B2c's statement above: "[H]ere on WP the particular term "unnecessary disambiguation" is generally accepted to be used to refer to titles with more precision in them than is necessary for disambiguation from other uses on Wikipedia". But it's not generally accepted to mean that. It's WP:ADVOCACY by B2c and one or two supporters to be a new way that this phase should be interpreted.

Not every title that could be shortened should be, and most Wikipedians understand this, but the same idea underlies both of B2c's presently MfD'd proposals/essays. Frankly, they are further from WP standard operating procedure than his User:Born2cycle/Yoghurt principle essay, but it too was userspaced for many of the same reasons given in the two ongoing discussions.

While, again, I am not advocating deletion, and most of us are not, this is a clear case of an essay conflicting with actual WP practice, and given that it's also essentially a one-editor piece, it's a perfect candidate for userspacing with no redir (especially not a WP:anything shortcut, as its author frequently cites it as if it were a guideline, and people have been mistaking it for well-accepted WP consensus thinking on disambiguation, which is is not). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Born2cycle is trying to expand the usage of this term to encompass any article title that could be shortened by removing or reducing disambiguation, even where there's already a consensus that doing so would not be helpful, as in the case of US placenames. "

Oh, please. Do I really have to show you how often and how many other editors refer to such cases as "unnecessary disambiguation", including with respect to US placenames? Don't shoot the messenger (or the essay). I didn't make up this concept, term or how it's used. I just helped document it as accurately as I could. --В²C ☎ 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that self-assessment—you have promoted and evangelized that skewed interpretation as much as you could. Something more akin to a propagandist than a messenger, if you ask me. I don’t know whether you’ve done this intentionally (confirmation bias can be tricky to overcome), but that’s what you’ve done. But if you have such faith in it, then please, move it to your userspace, invite the community to help revise and improve it (and accept their changes), and then propose it once it’s up to snuff. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm being held to standards that no one else is expected to meet. There is no proposal process, formal or informal, for moving an essay from user space to WP space. Essays are not required to have consensus support. People are always welcome to edit and improve essays, as long as they don't change the underlying message. This essay is no different. Almost every day editors use the reasoning explained in this essay. Referring to an essay is more efficient than explaining the reasoning over and over each time. Referring to it like that is not being a propagandist. That's why it's there, and people other than me do reference it. If you don't agree with it, ignore it. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“There is no proposal process, formal or informal, for moving an essay from user space to WP space.” Well then, do whatever it is that’s done when a controversial, userfied essay no longer meets WP:NOTESSAY. Or propose it as a guideline or policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This essay currently meets NOTESSAY. It always has. There are no policy grounds to userify it. People who disagree with are !voting for userification with no argument other than they disagree with it (actually, with what appears to be a misunderstanding of what it says), which is not a valid justification for userification. Nor is not liking how often or where it's referenced or by whom. These are the nature of the reasons given for userification. --В²C ☎ 19:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong shortcut—I meant WP:NOESSAY. That is, do whatever is done when userfied essays become accepted by the community. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual demanding that the community explain how your actions violate that policy—and do so to your satisfaction—does not burden the community with an obligation to comply with your demands. Essentially the same answer. Wikilawyering to avoid listening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOESSAY says:

The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space. These include:

Writings that have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever. The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice) and not any unrelated outside causes.

Writings that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not.

Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays.

Of course this essay is clear of the first two bullets. As to the third bullet, it requires overt contradiction of policy. There is NO contradiction of policy in this essay (and if there was that would be subject to discussion and correction), much less overt contradiction. This essay does not even disagree with policy (which, if it did, is expressly allowed anyway). You guys keep claiming there is a problem, without explaining what it is. You cite NOESSAY as if the relevance is obvious, but it's not at all. Why don't you just admit you don't like the essay and that's the reason, and the only reason, you want it userfied? --В²C ☎ 01:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proclivity to ascribe all arguments you don't like as WP:JDLI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misunderstand the purpose of NOESSAY. It’s not saying “these are the only acceptable reasons for rejecting an essay.” It’s saying “these are some reasons that essays tend to be rejected.” There are no criteria that must be met before the community may reject an essay. The community is rejecting this essay as it now stands, for reasons that you have rejected. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. "The community" tolerates "a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages". It's not the community that is rejecting anything here. It's a small group of people who have a history of disagreeing with me about titles. Nobody !voting delete or userfy here is uninvolved. --В²C ☎ 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Said people are part of the community. It’s how this whole consensus thing works here. I for one agree with the various reasons given for rejecting the essay and the position it takes, and I believe that for it to stay in project space, it would need to be heavily edited, even rewritten; and I believe that project space is not the best place for an essay under heavy revision. So in my opinion, we should either split the essay and start over from the original repurposed proposal, or split it while we (the community) work on what you’ve turned it into. I understand and accept that you do not agree with this, and that you may never understand why anyone would take a contrary position to yours. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. Given that none of the explicit reasons to userfy essays currently cited at WP:NOESSAY apply to this essay, if you were to add an explicit reason to reject an essay to WP:NOESSAY, that would apply to this essay, and would be accepted by the community as a reasonable general rule, what would it say? This should not be difficult to do if there is an objective and reasonable reason to userfy this essay. --В²C ☎ 16:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Writings that there is a consensus against being in project space.” That’s the bottom line, really. But for a more specific reason, I ~~would modify~~ modified an existing point by removing the word overtly, or by changing the wording to subvert. Undermining shouldn’t have to be overt to be strongly discouraged. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with removing "overt", but do you seriously believe this essay undermines policy at all? Please identify the policy and identify specifically what the essay says in words from the essay (rather than some vague impression of what you think it says) that you believe undermines that policy. --В²C ☎ 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do believe this essay undermines policy and consensus. I’m not saying you intentionally wrote it for that conscious purpose, but it does. I and others have already attempted to explain how, like SmokeyJoe immediately above this subsection. I know you don’t accept it and doubt you ever will. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Smokey's first complaint is a quote of the nutshell, which are YOUR words, ironically[18]. Secondly, nothing he says shows a conflict with any policy, much less an undermining of policy. He doesn't even mention any other policy. Basis for legitimate claim of policy conflict or undermining should be trivial to show:

Policy P says X. This essay says Y, which conflicts/undermines what P says because Y conflicts or undermines X (and explain how if it's not obvious).

Nobody has come even close to doing this in this pathetic wall of baseless claims about this essay. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by that quote as an accurate representation of this essay as written. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that this is a problem. If you don’t think presenting a personal opinion as an actual set of rules undermines the real rules, then… I’m not sure how to explain it to you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C: I commented in essentially that form; others have also raised various reasonable concerns, as 174 rightly notes. And yes: I know you choose either to not hear or to dismiss as baseless all such complaints, and you're welcome to your views, but please understand that most commentators seemingly do not accept that (and aren't required to endlessly reiterate their concerns until you yourself accept them — something I agree will probably never happen). ╠╣uw [talk] 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huwmanbeing, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the discussion here is whether the essay undermines policy, and to that point you did say this above:

I agree that the problem really isn't about direct contradiction [much less overt undermining -B2C] of policy, but rather about contradiction (or perhaps I should say misrepresentation) of what is and is not supported by consensus

By the way, nothing in this essay says that unnecessary disambiguation should always be avoided, without exception. It just defines what the term means, and explains the history and relevance. --В²C ☎ 21:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my later comment — the one beginning, "the more I examine the essay, the more I find that's troubling. As-is it undermines the consensus-building mandated by Wikipedia:Article titles." Perhaps you missed it — it's the one that's in the form of policy P says X; this essay says Y, which conflicts/undermines what P says because Y conflicts or undermines X (and explains how if it's not obvious).

Again, I get that you dismiss this and all the other varied concerns that have been raised here as "pathetic", "baseless", personally-motivated, or (at best) misunderstandings. You're welcome to that view. I and others simply disagree, for reasons already repeatedly voiced. Further re-argument or re-reiteration at this point serves no purpose. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate my belief that this essay basically restates what is both policy (in terms of precision and conciseness) and common sense. Of course, titles will be longer than the minimum needed to identify the subject if that length reflects a substantially more common usage, or is needed to actually disambiguate from another subject, or is consistent with a naming convention generally covering other articles in the same field. Aside from these circumstances, however, we should avoid titles that are longer than they need to be to quickly identify the subject to the reader. bd2412 T 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The response to that belief is essentially that same as my post of 07:03, 28 August 2014. The elements of policy contained are not an issue, the problem is the style of rules asserted as if by fiat, interwoven with a single-author opinion, that makes is not a proper project space essay. It is not a proper essay by any measure (analysis by others on its talk page), but in userspace these things are not judged. As espousing of rules as it is, if kept in project space, the appropriate tag is {{proposed}}, which takes us back to the 2006 version which was unilaterally overwritten. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I fully agree with BD2412's statement. I reiterate, "Of course, titles will be longer than the minimum needed to identify the subject if that length reflects a substantially more common usage, or is needed to actually disambiguate from another subject, or is consistent with a naming convention generally covering other articles in the same field. Aside from these circumstances, however, we should avoid titles that are longer than they need to be..." If anyone thinks that's inconsistent with policy, please explain how. If anyone thinks that's inconsistent with what this essay says, let's fix it, because that's what it is intended to say. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 21:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you above, but I’ll reiterate here at the bottom to make sure you don’t miss it: If presenting an opinion as a rule does not undermine the actual rules, I don’t know what does. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion that basically restates the existing rule and provides reasoning in support of it is supporting the rule, not undermining it. We do, as a matter of title policy, prefer to avoid the unnecessary addition of disambiguators or disambiguating terms, even though this is subject to a number of local exceptions like those for lesser known unique U.S. city names. bd2412 T 14:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree presenting an opinion as rule undermines the actual rules, and an essay should not do that. If this or any other essay is believed to do that, then that should be presented and discussed on that essay's talk page. You know, with a quote of the words that are alleged to present an opinion as a rule, and an explanation of why it is believed that those words appear to do that. What's bizarre to me is making claims about the existence of problems, over and over and over, without ever actually identifying any such problems, which is basically what this entire page is about (that, and me pointing that out, over and over and over). It's ridiculous. --В²C ☎ 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, it is inconsistent with policy. The "however" clause indicates that even in the cases you mention, the titles are still "longer than they need to be". They are not. Titles should convey something about the subject, and sometimes a title that is not as short as it could be is needed. This whole essay goes against that. Omnedon (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the "however" clause to which you refer is in WP:AT ("However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious"). Yes, in some cases the choice is not obvious. You, I and the essay all agree with policy on that point.

You also refer to "even in the cases you mention". What cases are those? The examples in the essay? Are you saying some or all of those examples fall into the category of "some cases the choice is not so obvious"? If so, at best that's a subjective judgment call - not an undermining or contradiction of policy by any stretch - it's just a disagreement about whether those particular cases fall into the "some cases the choice is not so obvious" category. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cases you mentioned. In the sentence to which I was responding. It's not difficult. Omnedon (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, he was referring to BD2412’s comments which you repeated: “Of course, titles will be longer […] if […]. Aside from these circumstances, however, we should avoid titles that are longer than they need to be […].” Hope that helps. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omnedon, your 16:42, 4 Sep comment is indented one level under my 16:38, 4 Sep comment - so I presumed you were responding to that. But it made no reference to anything that could be construed as "the cases you mention". I understand now that you were replying to my 21:49, 3 Sep post in which I quoted BD2412 as saying, "titles will be longer than the minimum needed to identify the subject if that length reflects a substantially more common usage, or is needed to actually disambiguate from another subject, or is consistent with a naming convention generally covering other articles in the same field". So, those are the "cases you mention"!

I now understand you to say that the "However" clause in BD2412's statement — "Aside from these circumstances, however, we should avoid titles that are longer than they need to be..." —-- suggests that titles in those cases are "longer than they need to be", and you disagree with that.

I think we're splitting hairs here, but the point of the first case is illustrated by Reagan identifying the president just as readily as Paris identifies the city, but we still use Ronald Reagan for the title because it "reflects a substantially more common usage", but not because the "Ronald" is necessary or needed for disambiguation (Reagan is recognized as the primary topic for Ronald Reagan and, so, redirects there).

The second case ("needed to actually disambiguate ...") is of course necessary for disambiguation, by definition, so the However statement is technically inaccurate, but only because of this self-evident second case.

The third case has to do with following naming conventions, which, again, is clearly not necessary in the sense that disambiguation is necessary. After, the US City convention used to indicate that San Francisco be at San Francisco, California; clearly that was not necessary. Just because the convention still says that Baton Rouge must be Baton Rouge, Louisiana does not mean the "Louisiana" is any more necessary than the "California" was. But it also demonstrates that we sometimes choose to disambiguate even when it's not necessary, and that following conventions is one of the reasons we might do that.

It says nothing that is inconsistent with policy. But even if it did, what's relevant here is whether the essay says anything inconsistent with policy. --В²C ☎ 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This essay argues in various ways that the shortest title is best. That is counter to policy which says no such thing. That is your own view, not policy. This essay is just one of many ways in which you push this view. You are free to do so, but not under the guise of policy -- hence the need to userfy this essay. Omnedon (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the essay says nothing about "the shortest title is best", ever. Neither explicitly nor implicitly. That's your personal (and incorrect) interpretation of not only the essay, but my beliefs. If you limited your criticism to only what the essay actually says rather than what you imagine it says, our discussions would be much more productive. --В²C ☎ 14:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, I also get that impression both from the essay and from various comments of yours, and you seem to be fairly well known for that belief. If this isn’t even a view that you hold, then, again, there is a huge problem with the way you present things if it leads to so much misinterpretation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, it's incredible that you deny this. You've stated your belief that "shorter is better" in many ways, over and over, during the past several years. But as for the essay -- "Title minimization ... is generally preferred to help us achieve the goal of reducing conflict about titles." And this: "But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever." Yet you deny that the essay argues that "shorter is better". This essay reflects your own personal view, IMHO a distorted view, of policy. It should be userfied. Omnedon (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor closed as userfied. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This essay sucks. It is too long, rambling, a complete mess. My objection is not that it exists, but that it is represented as some sort of a semi-official supplement to a valid guideline page. Either that flag needs to be downgraded to indicate that this is a simple, non-binding essay or else this page should be deleted. MOS creep at its most ugly... Carrite (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have specific constructive suggestions for improvement, why not suggest them on the talk page and seek a consensus for them? bd2412 T 19:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this MFD is a constructive suggestion for improvement: Split and revert to the original proposal. That would alleviate all of Carrite’s listed concerns. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that so long as some later additions can be returned to the essay by consensus. bd2412 T 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That’s what I’ve imagined would happen if it was split/reverted. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and essays commonly undergo major changes, if that's what's needed, without going back to some earlier version. I see no reason why the tried and true approach cannot be used for this essay. A common mechanism is to draft a major proposal change on a subpage and open it up for discussion. You can even gut it to the original proposal on a subpage, add what you think is appropriate from the current essay to that, and then propose replacing the current essay with the subpage. But just gutting the essay is likely to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, which I suspect is exactly what some people would like to see happen here. Again, those who disagree with the fundamental tenets of an essay really shouldn't be involved. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion to text that predates controversial changes multiple editors have objected to is actually normal practice. The only thing being done differently here is we're showing you the extra respect of asking if MfD wants to go the extra mile and save your work in a userspaced page instead of just disappearing it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.