User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
3 vs 2 is consensus?
Please explain to me how this RM discussion, where two were in favour and two against, with the latter putting significantly more effort and rationale in their argumentation, is considered consensus to move: Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested_move_28_October_2022. It seems to me that the discussion was merely a charade, in reality older and higher privileged editors simply made a decision and that was that. I think it at least should be relisted again. Regards. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Cc Shibbolethink. For future reference, the closer's talk page or Wikipedia:Move review is the standard way to challenge move requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Mango från yttre rymden, how's it going. The proper procedure for this kind of thing is to first go to the closer's talk page (@Shibbolethink in this case) and try to resolve it there. And then if that doesn't work, to head over to Wikipedia:Move review and make a claim for why the close should be overturned. I'm going to move this over to my talk page and answer there. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay so here's my response. This is a consensus because, per WP:CONSENSUS, discussions are not decided merely by a vote, see WP:NOTAVOTE. The clarity of argument, strength of policy, procedures, and the amount it is convincing to uninvolved editors is how consensus is decided on wikipedia. In the case of this move, I had relisted it once, to try and gain more input. And the only input that was received (from an uninvolved editor, mind you) was in favor of the move. Next, as @Pppery pointed out in the discussion, it is true that WP:NATURALDIS supersedes WP:COMMONNAME
in this case. And other editors agreed with them.
Avoiding ambiguity is one of the #1 things we do when we decide titles on wikipedia. We don't want visitors to end up on the wrong page, and we definitely don't want them to end up on the wrong page without an easy way to get to the right one. Hence, we have disambiguation pages for exactly this reason. This is a perfect example of how to use disambiguation pages. Multiple pages have S.M.A.R.T. as an acronym. And ACROTITLE tells us not to use the periods, but also WP:PRECISE tells us to use the most precise possible title to avoid ambiguity. Hence, the policies in this case favor the move.
These policy arguments were also the most influential on the uninvolved users who joined the discussion (e.g. @SMcCandlish). As to whether I should have relisted the discussion, WP:RM explicitly discourages second relists when it is unlikely a more robust consensus will develop. We had extremely little input in this discussion, it seems even my pings to related pages did not draw a lot of interest. So a relist would not have made sense. It was also clear to me that we had a consensus, from uninvolved input and clarity of policy arguments.
However, you are absolutely free to disagree, and pursue this further at Wikipedia:Move review. Good luck and I hope you find what you're looking for here on wikipedia.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Hello. This is Jgstokes. I have been a Wikipedia editor for the last 15 years. Much of my work here has focused on articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest religious sect in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. In my recent efforts to continue to improve that project, User:FormalDude has been helping me work through existing policy and make chages to that where we can. Changes are in the works for the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. I recently saw your good faith efforts to change the mid-sentence capitalization of "The" in the name of the Church. I am not familiar with the policies cited that led to the consensus to use the lower casse "t" in the name of the Church in mid-sentence. So I wanted to reach out to you on this, based on FormalDude's recommendation. The Church itself is an incorporated entity, and all sources covering developments relating to the Church use the upper case in reference to the full name of the Church. With that in mind, whenever you are able to do so, could you provide me with a more complete explanation on the decision that was made? I have no desire to be a nuisance, but I was unable to participate in the original discussion on this, so I would like some clarification on these points. Take whatever time you might need to reply. I look forward to dialoguing more with you in the future on this. Thanks for your time. Jgstokes (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, and also why the LDS official church-made style guide uses the capital T in its official name, to differentiate itself from other LDS churches in the early movement, to show its followers it is the "one true Church", etc. I honestly and truly do not care much either way, but I do think it's important that wikipedia be WP:CONSISTENT for all religious movements (and indeed, all movements, groups, and corporations), and treat no particular such group as different or special. Indeed, there is no organization or movement or company for which we allow mid-sentence capitalization of "the", even if it is part of the proper name of that group or entity. This is because, in wikipedia parlance, definite articles in mid-sentence usage are not part of proper nouns, basically ever. There are a few notable exceptions, but that's the general rule of thumb, and the community has decided that the name of the LDS church is not one of those exceptions.See, for example, WP:THE and the similar situations we have for The Coca-Cola Company (List of assets owned by the Coca-Cola Company) or The Crown (List of current viceregal representatives of the Crown).I understand why the LDS leadership would want to have this capitalization, I understand why these are the rules for the church itself. But on Wikipedia, we have conventions and rules which seek to encyclopedically describe all of our content in the same neutral manner. And that requires us to sometimes use wikipedia-specific conventions to the great consternation of the things, organizations, and people that we cover here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book):
I see you considered the capitalization here. What made you decide to go back to the lower case the?Naraht (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2022
- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Acts of the Apostles on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)