The specific month-long dispute at WP:TITLE is about whether the Recognizability criterion should be restricted to those familiar with articles topic or not. This specific dispute at WP:TITLE is really part of a larger one that extends to WP:D/WT:D, and many RM discussion in which Noetica, Tony1 and Dicklyon are involved, because they hold a view contrary to long-held community consensus about titles. In particular, they would like to see more descriptive information in many titles in situations where the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions indicate otherwise, primarily because of our convention to add more descriptive information to titles only when needed to disambiguate the titles from others uses in Wikipedia.
It has been suggested that I should note at the outset here that the reason this particular wording is controversial is because these three editors (and there may be more, like Ohconfucious and Kwami) wish to have article titles with more description in them than just their names than most people think would be beneficial to the encyclopedia or its readers. Some examples of the expression of this view:
Some background on the Recognizability wording
[edit]The specific month-long dispute at WP:TITLE is about whether the Recognizability criterion should be restricted to those familiar with articles topic or not. This specific dispute at WP:TITLE is really part of a larger one that extends to WP:D/WT:D, and many RM discussion in which Noetica, Tony1 and Dicklyon are involved, because they hold a view contrary to long-held community consensus about titles. In particular, they would like to see more descriptive information in many titles in situations where the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions indicate otherwise, primarily because of our convention to add more descriptive information to titles only when needed to disambiguate the titles from others uses in Wikipedia.
- December 20, 2011 22:35 The origin of the specific dispute starts when Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s edit in a discussion about whether a title required disambiguation, alerts me to the fact that the familiarity clause of the Recognizability criterion at WP:CRITERIA was no longer there.
- I researched the situation and concluded that it had been removed inadvertently on May 21, 2011 in a simplification effort that did not intent to change the meaning of this criterion.
- The familiarity phrase was removed May 21, 2011 by Ohms law (talk · contribs): [7]
- May 20, 2011 discussion preceding that edit [8]
- While I knew the phrase was supported by community consensus and continually reaffirmed in practice, I also knew there was a small group of editors who would probably oppose re-inserting the phrase because it contradicted their view that many of our titles should be more descriptive, so I decided to treat it as a bold edit. So, per WP:BRD, I simultaneously edited the policy age and added a full explanation to the talk page.
- Despite all that, I wasn't too surprised to be reverted almost immediately.
- Dec 20, 2011 23:15 Reverted by Tony1 (talk · contribs) [11] edit summary: "Whoa, hold on: could we have talk-page consensus for these changes?"
- After all, I was prepared to discuss it and explain it. What I wasn't prepared for was a discussion about why there needed to be a discussion instead of actually having that discussion. After 40 minutes of that with multiple posts from Tony1 and Dicklyon (talk · contribs) without any substantive objection from either one I stated, "I will presume the absence of the expression of a substantive objection to the restorative change is evidence of an actual absence of a substantive objection to the restorative change, and so will restore it again.", and then re-inserted the phrase, but this was soon reverted by Dicklyon.
- Dec 20, 2011 23:53 Phrase re-inserted by Born2cycle [12] edit summary: "Again, restoring original wording. Per talk, no substantive objection expressed to this restoration."
- Dec 21, 2011 00:07 Phrase removed by Dicklyon [13] Edit summary: "several of us have asked B2C on talk page to make a proposal and discuss it first, rather than unilaterally change the guideline"
- 00:15 December 21 2011 A few minutes later Noetica (talk · contribs) weighs in in the discussion, with a long disruptive personal attack on me, and saying nothing substantive in objection to the edit [14]
- 00:58 December 21, 2011 Two hours after I clearly gave my reasons for the edit, Dicklyon is suggesting I make a proposal and "wait for some discussion". [15]
The insistence to discuss, while simultaneously refusing and/or avoiding actual substantive discussion has continued by Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica for over a month now, as today is already January 26, 2012, and not one of them has said anything substantive in objection to the edit, or in support of the wording without the edit.
The problem is that nobody can figure out a coherent way to incorporate this wish into our conventions, guidelines and policies. They seek to tweak policy here and there, as in this case, presumably to allow them to add more description in some cases, but the big issue of how to deal with this properly is never addressed. From the moment Tony first reverted an edit that I first made on Dec 21, which I accompanied with a clear and reasonable explanation on the talk page, they have never put forward a substantive statement or argument explaining why that edit should not be accepted.
In the mean time thirteen separate experienced editors (it was 11 yesterday) -- Kotniski, EdChem, PBS, Kai445, Born2cycle, Powers, WhatamIdoing, JCScaliger, Enric Naval, Eraserhead, Greg L, Jenks24, Bkonrad -- have all clearly explained why it should be in there.
Instead of addressing the issues substantively, they have used so many stonewalling techniques to maintain the status quo, I wrote an essay about it. The first excuse was that we needed to have talk-page consensus "first" (never mind that there was nothing to talk about, which was clear to most of us then, but now, 5 weeks later, with still no substantive talk from them, there can be no question about that for anyone). If you unhide the hidden sections of that initial discussion, Wikipedia_talk:AT#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost, you'll see that all these three were willing to talk about was how inappropriate it was for me to make that change, not the change itself. Dicklyon even went so far as to admit, "I haven't even looked at what you're proposing or what it's implications are ". That was on Dec 21. Today is Jan 24, and, as far as I can tell, he still hasn't even looked at the proposal or what its implications are. If he has, he certainly hasn't written anything about doing that. But despite all their diversions, a few people did contribute substantively to the discussion: In particular:
- "We don't expect titles to be recognizable to people who have no familiarity with the subject at all " --Kotniski (talk · contribs):
- "It is ridiculous to suggest that titles need to be recognisable to those totally unfamiliar with the subject." --EdChem (talk · contribs)
- "I agree that the previous wording was superior, but to be so it has to include the parenthetical '(though not necessarily expert in)'" PBS (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- "It looks clear to me that it needs to be reverted back to the way it was." --Kai445 (talk · contribs)
Not liking the way that discussion was going, less than 24 hours later Dicklyon started a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:AT#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording, ostensibly because we supposedly need to have "a thoughtful discussion of the wording of the title guideline at Wikipedia:AT#Deciding_on_an_article_title concerning recognizability." I note that that too was written on Dec 21, and we are still waiting for him to say a single thoughtful thing about "the wording ... concerning recognizability" over a month later. No, I'm not exaggerating. Please note how easy it would be to refute that assertion if I was wrong, by quoting something thoughtful that he said about that wording since then. The statements in favor of my edit continued to roll in:
- "This version retains necessary clarity that was lost with the revision. Without the caveat, it renders the task of naming articles nearly impossible, as it requires the titles to be recognizable even to people unfamiliar with the topic. That will produce unnecessarily complex and lengthy titles. " - Powers
- "Since we get occasional complaints that "I didn't recognize it, so it's not recognizable", it seems useful to specify who ought to be recognizing the title. " - WhatamIdoing
- "On the underlying dispute, I oppose the unnecessary disambiguation " - JCSscaliger
- "Making all titles recognizable for everybody would force us to create convoluted titles. " - Enric Naval
I note these are all substantive statements in favor of my edit, not made under duress or in a moment of passion, and again, there were no substantive statements made in opposition to my edit. Of course, those opposed to the edit (for reasons they were and are unable to articulate) were unhappy about this, and, instead of engaging substantively in the discussion, threw a hissy-fit. That was still on Dec 22.
Somewhere along the way Noetica was apparently able to dupe Kwami into believing there was an ongoing substantive dispute about the edit and that there was no consensus in favor of the edit. So Kwami reverted the wording to the problematic "status quo" version, and locked the page. And that's where we've been since then, more or less, with a few edit skirmishes/relocks along the way. The rest of the talk page is mostly talking about talking about it. I've tried staying away for days at a time, and I've tried engaging them in substantive discussion about it. Kotniski, Greg L, I and others have tried to get those opposed to my edit to explain why. For example, Greg L wrote just yesterday: "So I invite anyone from the other side of The Force to clearly refute what [Born2cycle] just wrote and explain why there isn’t a consensus to add “to readers familiar...”.". Such requests for the opposers of my edit to explain their position are sprinkled throughout the page since Dec 21 (I won't take up even more room by listing them all, but a bunch are easy to find just by searching for Kotniski), all remaining unanswered.
Nothing has worked, except outside opinions keep rolling in in favor of my edit:
- "Version 1 is clearly better," -Eraserhead1
- "FWIW, I prefer "to readers familiar...". It assumes readers have a flying clue what they are reading up on rather than pandering to the MTV crowd with the attention span of a lab rat on meth. It should be “Boutros Boutros-Ghali”, not “Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egyptian dude)”. " - Greg L
- "Long-time listener, first-time caller.... I've stalked this debate for well over a month now without weighing in. In short, I support both the "to readers familiar..." language and the reasoning behind it as expressed by so many on this page." -Dohn joe
- Add another person who prefers the "to readers familiar" version (either the 2011 version or Dick's variation). Anyone could see there is a clear consensus for it, so can it please be implemented and not continually reverted for being "under discussion"? Stop filling my watchlist with this ridiculousness. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been watching the drama here in utter disbelief at the obfuscation by some (and while I don't always like the manner in which B2B comports himself, his use of the term "stonewalling" is exactly right). Add my name to the list of editors who support the "to readers familiar" version. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The three of them, or maybe four if you include Oh Confucious, have had ample opportunity to make whatever case they want to make, but they haven't made a single substantive statement in favor of leaving out the "familiar with" clause, or replacing it with anything else. Yet they keep insisting that there is no consensus and more discussion is needed. Just how much of this kind of obstinacy is the community supposed to endure?
Their behavior here takes tenatious editing to new heights, especially the WP:IDHT variety. I mean, let's just look at the edit summaries from yesterday:
- JCScaliger applied the wording from my edit along with Greg L's suggestion to include examples; perhaps a compromise? [16]
- Noetica reverts[17] on the following tired grounds: "discussion is in progress; please respect due process; nothing is achieved in edit wars"
- Discussion is in progress? Really? WHERE? We've been waiting for a month for anyone of these clowns (sorry, but I'm really, really frustrated) to discuss, and they refuse, and yet keep on using this excuse that discussion is in progress and more is necessary to revert an edit they simply don't like for no good reason.
- JCScaliger, understandably frustrated with all the non-substantive discussion, tries something a little different[18]
- Then Kwami, who has apparently bought into Noetica's nonsense, reverts JCScaliger[19] with edit summary: "Get someone to resolve this rather than edit warring".
- Well, here we are, Elen! Please resolve this.
- Now Greg L, who has finally taken a serious look at the situation, gets involved, and reverts Kwami[20] with edit summary: " The consensus is quite clear. I am wikifriends with those who oppose this edit and have recently been at war with a major advocate of it. I am uninvolved, not encumbered by past wikidrama, and can read."
- Believing this has finally been settled, I make another clarifying tweak, incorporating the definition of ambiguity from the first sentence of WP:D into some wording on this page[21].
- My latest edit is quickly reverted by Ohconfucious[22] with edit summary: "no thanks. This is exactly one of the main issues that is causing the problem right now".
- Not sure where this going, but we're discussing that per BRD here.
- Now Noetica reverts Greg L[23], with this edit summary: "Undid recent edits that preempted the result of an RFC in progress; I have put the matter in the hands of admin Elen of the Roads "
- [cynicism on]Translation: "Maybe I can dupe Elen into believing the ongoing dispute is substantive on both sides, as if there is and has been real discussion going on... maybe she too won't look at it closely enough to see through the smoke I've created. After all, it worked with Kwami. It's worth a try!"[cynicism off]
- JCS gives it another try, this time trying a version of the wording Dicklyon had proposed a while back[24]
- Noetica reverts this as well[25] with edit summary repeating his lame old argument: "try this, try that ... just try sitting still for a while, and see what admin Elen of Roads might have to say, now; the matter is UNDER DISCUSSION, in AN RFC; that means you find a consensual solution; THEN implement it; rocket science? No!"
- Now, I've been watching all this and restraining myself, but I've finally had it, so I revert Noetica[26] with edit summary: "We've been waiting since Dec 21 for you to discuss, Noetica. That's more than reasonable. Enough with the stonewalling. See User:Born2cycle/Status_quo_stonewalling#Arguing_more_discussion_is_needed.2C_without_discussing_more"
- Now PBS steps in for the first time in a long time and adds wording from my original edit that had been left out from the Dicklyon version to which I had just reverted [27]
- And then Dicklyon reverts [28] with edit summary: "the process to work it out on the talk page is still stalled by B2C refusing to back off; give it time and let's work it out. "
- So in a month of infinite opportunities to explain their position they haven't because B2C has refused "to back off". Please tell me you're not buying this blatant b.s.
- Now that it's back to the status quo version, Kwami again locks the page[29]. Never mind that there is no evidence whatsoever for consensus support for this status quo version.
- Unprotected by you[30]. (thank you)
Now, isn't a month long enough for them to provide a substantive explanation for their objection to my edit, especially since we've clearly shown that consensus supports this edit? Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Noetica and a couple of his friends made a suggestion some time ago, that we adopt a new form of title, involving substantial use of unnecessary disambiguation. This did not gather much support, partly because of one of the sentences in the first section of WP:TITLE.
- Noetica then boldly edited the sentence, and this became controversial.
NoeticaDicklyon then started an RFC of his own, which got seven opinions, all for language that included the key phrase that Noetica finds inconvenient. So far so good. But Noetica then abandoned the RFC and made procedural complaints.- He now reverts to the language he prefers. He does not discuss these reversions.
- Born2cycle has, in response to this, started an RFC, but nobody has !voted in it. Instead, it has become a discussion, which is what RFCs really ought to do.
- All this would be no problem, except that one of Noetica's friends, an admin called Kwamikagami, has taken to protecting the page, always on Noetica's version. Searching talk pages for Kwami and Noetica will confirm that they frequently work together, and usually agree. (He also expressed a strong opinion on the underlying issue.
- As for my own edit, it was an effort to reduce this to the baseline before Noetica was bold, after Noetica's last undiscussed exact revert. There hasn't been very much happening since Noetica began this, and I was going to repair the incidental damage. But Kwami reverted me before I finished commenting on the talk page, and threatened me; he has never said anything to Noetica.
- For an independent opinion on this matter, see (for example), this edit summary: Undid revision by Kwamikagami. The consensus is quite clear. I am wikifriends with those who oppose this edit and have recently been at war with a major advocate of it. I am uninvolved, not encumbered by past wikidrama, and can read.
- Please get Kwami's one-sided adminship out of the way; the revert-warrior we can handle ourselves. There does seem to be a cultural problem at MOS; as another editor said, on another issue: "Consensus" here (and at WP:AT) seems to mean "whatever Noetica decides". We've had difficulty defining consensus in the past - I'm glad we've now reached a clear and easily applicable interpretation of the concept. But we've seen these cliques before, and the normal process of dispute resolution has taken care of them. JCScaliger (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)