Shall we propose a break from future move/renaming discussions? If so, how long (id est how many years)? --
George Ho (
talk) 16:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd agree with a moratorium, but it should be 3 or 6 months to let us see how the page views shape up.--
Cúchullain
t/
c 17:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You're a hypocrite. You're being hypocritical. You do not require evidence for the move you approve of that you demand for a restoration of consensus. —
kwami (
talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Evidently what should have happened was to have an ANI review of the original move, but instead I was advised to simply file a new move request. Now that I have, you've decided that's a problem. —
kwami (
talk) 17:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is a classic example of a group of editors speedily moving an article away from a long-standing, consensus-based, and policy-supported name and then demanding a pause for the "dust to settle" before returning to the prior title. It is wikilawyering at the least. And something quite unwelcome in Wikipedia at the worst. The only reason they care about a "moratorium" is that they see the discussion for moving the article back to its proper place is going against them and they have neither policy nor data to back up their position. Move the article back to its policy- and consensus-backed title, then have a pause while the rebellious editors try to prove their point. --
Taivo (
talk) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem clearly isn't having an RM, it's the way it has been done - it's far too soon, and Kwami has behaved unacceptably. The sad thing is, if it hadn't been for Kwami's move warring in the first place, it's quite possible the article would be back at your preferred title already.--
Cúchullain
t/
c 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why it might be far too soon, or why Kwami's behaviour might call for shutting the RM.
Alakzi (
talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Kwami's behavior is immaterial. The issue is that a poorly executed move against policy and over a long-standing consensus is being treated like it's a precious egg that has to be carefully handled or else it will break. It was broken when it began--the move that you so tenderly want to preserve, Cuchullain, is the root of the problem here, not Kwami's behavior. --
Taivo (
talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is not appropriate Wiki behavior to move it to Tagalog; the user has listed and moved language pages and they don't get listed in the appropriate arenas and therefore do not reach consensus, or, in this situation, break consensus. "Wait for the dust to settle"? I just got here and I can tell the name is against policy and this is sheer wikilawyering.
Ogress
smash! 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that once this RM was appropriately listed at
WP:LANG (as the first one should have been), editors involved in the Languages Project started showing up and are unequivocally in favor of this article being placed at "Tagalog language". This should be a good indication of the poor quality of the "consensus" that moved "Tagalog language" in the first place. --
Taivo (
talk) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Re:
if it hadn't been for Kwami's move warring in the first place, it's quite possible the article would be back at your preferred title already – That may or may not be (I'm not going waste time analyzing who said what where), but if ANI suggesting taking it back to RM, or reasonably can be interpreted as collectively having suggested this, that's either a community decision on what to do, or good-faith interpretation of what the community consensus recommends, respectively. Berating him for it doesn't seem productive. It's better to just have the discussion and settle the matter. Especially since it looks like a
WP:SNOWBALL anyway. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is that the "two bites at the cherry" approach in quick succession certainly strikes me as
having been designed to fly under the radar (the second having been closed off on the 5th day). To now expect that a moratorium be put in place in order to uphold the decisions of an impoverished under-representation of interested editors is unacceptable. Moreover, editors are free to call
WP:SPADE where it's warranted without being censured for
personal attacks.
- If there's a desire to 'enshrine' any decision, the preference should go to the previous long-standing consensus version until those opposing it can actually formulate a convincing argument for this 'new' version.--
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 03:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Status quo first before moratorium. Move the article back to where it had been the longest and most stable, THEN we discuss this along with
English and all other ambiguous people-languages covered by
WP:NCLANG. The same message in Tagalog coming from a Tagalog: Ibalik sa kinalalagyan ang artikulong ito kung saan ito ay pinakamatagal at pinakamatatag, saka natin muling talakayin ito kasama ng Ingles at iba pang bagay patungkol sa wika at mga gumagamit nito na kailangan ng paglilinaw sa ilalim ng
WP:NCLANG.--
RioHondo (
talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The moratorium needs to happen now. There was no debate to justify the original name prior to June 18, 2015 so it was a mere assumption that the original name had consensus.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- "The moratorium needs to happen now" is being pushed by a single, solitary editor who is losing the argument against his anti-policy, anti-consensus, unadvertised "consensus" of five editors. As you can see from the above Request for Move, Shhhhwwww!! represents a very small number of editors, and from this request for a moratorium an even smaller number of editors who want to wikilawyer their anti-policy move into place. The editor in question has just been rejected from a similar move at
Tigrinya language for the very same grounds as here: Moving the "X language" article to "X" violates
WP:NCLANG and is ambiguous. --
Taivo (
talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now here is someone who does not even know that the
Philippine Revolution,
Philippine–American War, Moro Rebellion and WWII happened under colonial rule telling me what my language is or isn't. After derailing the last discussions by creating multiple overlapping RMs to discredit them, what made you think I am still interested in engaging with you further.--
RioHondo (
talk) 10:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Um... we need to rush the moratorium to enshrine your hasty flashmob move against long-standing page name? That doesn't sound like consensus.
Ogress
smash! 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The
WP:Consensus lies with the current name not the previous one. There were plenty of
opportunities for all of you to vent in previous discussion but some of you didn't. The point is there were already three discussions about what to name this article and the name held at "Tagalog". We shouldn't just keep on nominating this article.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 11:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, Shhhhwwww!!, you are quite wrong when the "flash mob" consensus you boast of was 1) against policy (
WP:NCLANG), 2) against a long-standing consensus, 3) reached without any notification on the relevant project page (
WP:LANG), and 4) reached with a tiny number of editors. It is simply not a consensus. You are engaging here in a feat of wikilawyering to enshrine your invalid move against a major consensus that has been built against your move. The long-standing consensus to have this article at "Tagalog language" has been validated. --
Taivo (
talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 18 June 2015 happened over a month ago and
Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 June 2015 was over a week ago. If there was really no consensus back then, why did it took you this long to provide evidence, long after the fact, long after the discussions have closed? This issue has been debated in three separate discussions and the name "Tagalog" has stuck. It's
Sisyphian to constantly
push this over and over.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's because you rushed the original RM (just one week), failed to advertise it properly in the relevant place, and then relied on a tiny number of editors to push your anti-policy change through. It's not rocket science and everyone sees through your desperation and wikilawyering. --
Taivo (
talk) 12:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- People also have lives. Some bone-headed moves don't get noticed for over a year. [shrug]. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't rush that proposal. I simply voted for it. It's not my fault I agreed with the result.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 12:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since you are the only one ignoring the growing consensus here, and the only one pushing an invalid flash mob consensus, then you bear the brunt of the discussion. If you are just an "innocent bystander", who simply voted for the invalid move, then why are you wikilawyering and pushing failed arguments so hard here? Accept the results of the valid consensus here (properly advertised and in conformance with Wikipedia policy) and be on your way to happier editing. --
Taivo (
talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
RioHondo, Kung gusto mo makipag-usap sa iyo ng Tagalog, makikipag-usap ako sa iyo ng Tagalog. Paikot-ikot na lang e. Lubos-Lubos na ang mga halimbawa na ang salitang "Tagalog" ang mas naaayon na pangngalan sa wika kaysa sa lahi kung ang Wikang Ingles ang pagbabasehan. Mas maraming mga aklat ang naisulat sa Wikang Ingles na tumutukoy sa wika kaysa sa lahi. Nakalulungkot lang isiping kahit gaano karami pang paliwanag hindi pa rin ito matanggap ng iilan-ilan. Hindi na tama ito. Sana naman may makinig na diyan.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia. Writing in another language is inappropriate without a translation. RioHondo simply translated his comments into Tagalog. --
Taivo (
talk) 12:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, what you are pushing for is a more eurocentric general categorization ignorant dismissal of a term which finds no other use from a foreigners view, but a language. That just sounds lazy and arrogant from a local's view. And if 90%+ of google books results for English also pertains to the language, there really is something wrong with your primary topic argument as the article is still at English language.--
RioHondo (
talk) 13:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support move moratorium, for a year. I don't support moratoria for longer, because
WP:Consensus can change. We don't need disruptive movewarring, however. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- A moratorium after moving the article back to "Tagalog language" per a straightforward application of
WP:NCLANG policy based on the strong consensus expressed above. --
Taivo (
talk) 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The moratorium needs to have happened before the current RM proposal. This is a clear
WP:CONTROVERSIAL article already subject to
move wars.
Shhhhwwww!! (
talk) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is of course impossible. The RfC decides the current consensus and a moratorium cannot be implemented to disregard an evident consensus.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 14:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support six months moratorium only if the article is moved back to "Tagalog language" the proper consensus version of title. The last move discussion for which the language project was not notified can't be accepted as proper consensus.
Khestwol (
talk) 12:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment:I guess we could take it as read that everyone would support a moratorium provided it supports their own particular view... So logically, this vote and similar ones above tell us absolutely nothing. At this stage, the only meaningful support for a moratorium is unqualified support.
Andrewa (
talk) 01:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because of the overwhelming support above for moving the article based on
WP:CONSENSUS and
WP:NCLANG, a moratorium seems rather pointless. It was originally proposed as a way to wikilawyer the existing article title which was built on a "consensus" of four. --
Taivo (
talk) 01:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm glad I won't be closing this RM, assessing the consensus looks more difficult to me than you suggest. But I must disagree that the support is based on WP:NCLANG, because several (self included) have taken the view that the convention doesn't support the move at all, just the opposite, and those who have quoted the text of the convention rather than just dropped its name seem to have taken this view (again self included). The closing admin will have to take all of this into account. Whether there's any point in the moratorium may be a moot point as getting consensus for it seems problematic too, which was where my comment was leading.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- You have misread the convention as have the others. The number one issue is ambiguity and the argument based on primary topic is a red herring that is only applicable when the ethnic label and the language label are different, such as is the case with "Latin", spoken by "Romans". Perhaps you have ignored the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as every other English dictionary, which defines "Tagalog" as the people first. It's not rocket science. If "Tagalog" can mean either the people or the language, then the rules of ambiguity apply and
WP:NCLANG is crystal clear. You and all the others have no real argument other than you want to be exceptional. The first rule of
WP:NCLANG names this article "Tagalog language" and the ethnicity article "Tagalog people", just like the policy is intended to do whenever the name of the language and the name of the people are identical. That's the first rule of
WP:NCLANG and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply here, other than a generous application of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When all English dictionaries define "Tagalog" as "1. A member of a Philippine ethnic group" first and foremost, then there is no reason to read any further than the first clause of
WP:NCLANG. --
Taivo (
talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- The first clause reads Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". Agree that if we stop reading there it supports your view. But the second clause reads If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this. Why you would stop reading where you have escapes me.
- I am confident that the contributors who arrived at a consensus on this naming convention intended the whole of the first paragraph to be read, not just half of it.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that your claim regarding dictionaries is relevant, but it is in any case just plain false. See
wikt:Tagalog. And note that we use noun phrases not adjectives as article titles, as I have said before. But in any case the language currently
[2] comes first.
Andrewa (
talk) 03:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Taivo. And don't forget the AT policy on
WP:PRECISE which this move violated. Which is: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The article at
Tagalog is a clear violation of that.--
RioHondo (
talk) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:stringing. This seems to be replying to my post, but it doesn't address it.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you,
fixed I see.
Andrewa (
talk) 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- So it all boils down to which policy is more important? And which should be given prime consideration when naming articles:
WP:AT and
WP:PRECISE in particular, or
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Considering what we know about the ambiguity of the term.--
RioHondo (
talk) 03:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no conflict. The much-quoted
WP:PRECISE reads in part Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as
Primary topic... (I invite you to read the rest and make sure I'm not leaving out anything relevant). Clearly, the writers saw the need to consider WP:Primary topic, and sometimes even to defer to it. That's what they are explicitly allowing here.
Andrewa (
talk) 03:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- But that exception is in conflict with the Wikipedia project
WP:NCLANG and its convention. So if
WP:AT and
WP:PRECISE were to be strictly followed, add a bit of
WP:NATURAL and
WP:COMMONSENSE, we'd have arrived with the ambiguated article title that is undisputed and with overwhelming consensus from the community.--
RioHondo (
talk) 04:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not in conflict with the Wikipedia project WP:NCLANG and its convention, and
this was answered above.
Andrewa (
talk) 04:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- You simply continue to treat Tagalog as an exception to the rule that when the people and the language have the same name, then you disambiguate them by naming the language article "X language" and the people article "X people". You have utterly failed to prove that this is an exception to that primary ruling. The second half of that clause only applies when there is no ethnic group called by the name of the language. The
WP:CONSENSUS here is that "Tagalog" can mean both. Every English dictionary lists the people first and the language second when defining the noun "Tagalog". Your continued wikilawyering about the second clause is simply irrelevant because the first clause perfectly defines this situation. --
Taivo (
talk) 05:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- You simply continue to treat Tagalog as an exception to the rule that when the people and the language have the same name, then you disambiguate them by naming the language article "X language" and the people article "X people". True. You have utterly failed to prove that this is an exception to that primary ruling. Can you explain what you want me to prove? The second half of that clause only applies when there is no ethnic group called by the name of the language. Disagree. It applies whenever
WP:Primary meaning is relevant, as is claimed here. There is no mention of ethnic groups. The
WP:CONSENSUS here is that "Tagalog" can mean both. True. Every English dictionary lists the people first and the language second when defining the noun "Tagalog". Almost true. Answered elsewhere, several times now. Your continued wikilawyering about the second clause is simply irrelevant because the first clause perfectly defines this situation. Disagree, and suggest you reread
WP:NPA.
- But more important, this completely ignores the logical structure of the first paragraph. Let me quote it again, this time in full so there is no ambiguity: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this. Examples are English language and Persian language, contrasted with Esperanto and Latin.
- Now the structure is this: The basic convention is set out in the first sentence. Exceptions are then authorised in the second sentence. It is impossible to tell whether this is an exception without reading the second sentence. Quite impossible. Does that really need to be further explained? And if it is one, then... well, obviously then the second sentence is very relevant indeed! As is claimed to be the case here.
- So we can't just ignore the second sentence. If we do, then we completely defeat its intent, and it might as well not be there. Which was not the intent of those who formed the consensus that approved this convention, obviously.
Andrewa (
talk) 05:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong. You "defeat the intent" when you have clear situations (as is the case with the vast majority of languages) where the people and the language share the same name, but you ignore it in order to push an agenda which ignores the problem of ambiguity. In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names. That is certainly not the case here. The Romans spoke Latin. Esperanto has no people. There is no ambiguity. But here the Tagalog people speak the Tagalog language just as the English people speak the English language. You simply have no argument other than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --
Taivo (
talk) 05:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- But, in the end, your attempts to violate the clear intent and plain wording of
WP:NCLANG for no reasonable purpose butt up against the clear and overwhelming
WP:CONSENSUS that has already been built above. Just because you claim that your argument is better than everyone else's doesn't make it so. The community has spoken clearly and unequivocally and they don't agree with you. --
Taivo (
talk) 05:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying what you want me to prove! In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names. OK, I'll admit that certainly I can't prove that, because it's not true. Tagalog can refer to the people group or the language. I thought that was agreed long ago, frankly.
- And the whole point of
WP:Primary meaning is that there are such instances where two topics can have the same name. So the second clause is only relevant in such cases, where two (or more) topics can have the same name.
- In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names. Then the second clause will never, ever take effect. It's about things that can have the same name. Am I missing something?
- I'm afraid my reaction is rubbish. I can't put it more gently. They can have the same name. There is consensus on that, and I think you yourself have asserted it (I could be wrong there). And that is the very reason that the second clause is relevant.
- Just because you claim that your argument is better than everyone else's doesn't make it so. Agree.
- The community has spoken clearly and unequivocally and they don't agree with you. Not convinced, obviously. But the closing admin will decide that, and will weigh up the arguments not just count the votes. I don't envy them. But it's not all that big an issue really. Thank you for listening so intently to my arguments.
Andrewa (
talk) 06:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-
WP:NCLANG has a simple and clear point that the vast majority of editors here understand readily. The point is that when the language and the people have the same name you name the language article "X language" and the people article "X people". You don't mess with "primary topic" because the answer is very simple. Notice the two examples given for the second clause of
WP:NCLANG: Latin and Esperanto. Latin is not ambiguous because the people who spoke Latin were called Roman, not "Latin". And there is no ethnic group called "Esperanto" because it is a constructed language. Your mistaken interpretation of the second clause as having any relevance to "Tagalog" is falsified by the examples cited in
WP:NCLANG. --
Taivo (
talk) 07:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the examples given do not cover this situation, and perhaps should, but they can't cover every situation. Disagree that my mistaken interpretation of the second clause as having any relevance to "Tagalog" is falsified by the examples cited, rather they don't have any relevance. Again, they simply do not cover this situation, and perhaps should. Still disagree that the second clause has no relevance.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- What you continue to
ignore is that there are two examples given at
WP:NCLANG which are precisely analogous to Tagalog's situation:
English language and
Persian language. Every argument that you have tried unsuccessfully to advance here is as relevant to these two languages as it is to the Tagalog language. So
WP:NCLANG does, indeed, have two examples that perfectly match the situation with "Tagalog". And in both cases,
WP:NCLANG specifically and unequivocally considers them to be examples of "X language"/"X people". You are right, neither "Latin" nor "Esperanto" match Tagalog's situation because they are not supposed to. "Tagalog" precisely matches the situation for "English" and "Persian". That's why it doesn't match either Latin or Esperanto because "Tagalog", like "English" and "Persian" is covered by the first clause of
WP:NCLANG. --
Taivo (
talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is at least the third time that you have accused me of
disruption, and you have similarly accused at least one other contributor. I gently suggest that you have no case, and that in view of this, this behavior is not acceptable. Perhaps also read
WP:AGF.
- I was replying to your statement above Notice the two examples given for the second clause of
WP:NCLANG: Latin and Esperanto. You seem to now agree that they are both irrelevant, which is exactly what I was saying.
- So now let's look at the possibly relevant examples:
English and
Persian. Note that these are far more extensive disambiguation pages than
Tagalog (disambiguation). So while I'd agree that they do have some relevance, the claim that they are two examples that perfectly match the situation with "Tagalog" is I think doubtful. Note that in order to be a primary topic by reason of usage, a topic needs to be more likely than all other topics taken together, and I can see why that isn't the case for English or Persian. In the case of Tagalog though, there are really only two contenders.
Andrewa (
talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Latin and Esperanto are indeed relevant to this issue because they are clear examples of how the second clause of the policy operates. And Tagalog fits into neither of those cases. It is perfectly in line with the English and Persian examples--where the ethnicity and the language ambiguously share the same name--and that is what this overwhelming
WP:CONSENSUS agrees with. --
Taivo (
talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I misunderstood your point there... partly because you seem to have changed your view that we should ignore the second clause completely (good). Disagree that It is perfectly in line with the English and Persian examples for reasons already given. And again, if the consensus really does side with you, then that's fine and we'll move on. It's not a big deal for me. But it's not a democracy, and I'm still hopeful that when the arguments are considered, it is a lot closer than you seem to think.
- And I think it's particularly important that the arguments should be assessed in a case like this, where the discussion has been in my opinion overly aggressive. As I've said elsewhere, you have accused me and others of disruption, and on several occasions. You have continually questioned the good faith of myself and others, also accusing me of Wikilawyering, circular arguments, illogic, and so on. In this environment, it's to be expected that at least some with opposing views to yours will decide that they just don't want to join in the discussion. A simple majority vote achieved in that way should not be called a consensus, and here at Wikipedia, it's not.
Andrewa (
talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- My point about the second clause has not changed--it's still irrelevant and always has been in this case. The point about Latin and Esperanto is that they illustrate that the second clause is, indeed, irrelevant to the case of Tagalog. You are simply twisting my words. Just because the two examples show that the second clause is irrelevant to Tagalog doesn't mean that I have changed my view about either the value of the examples or the irrelevancy of the second clause. Your views on the relevancy of
WP:CONSENSUS are heretical to Wikipedia. The notion that an admin can ignore a consensus with as much support as this one has is simply not in keeping with one of Wikipedia's primary pillars. The notion that your minority view on the interpretation of
WP:NCLANG is more important than the interpretation of the overwhelming majority of editors (some of them also admins and many of them quite experienced) who have joined this discussion is rather idiosyncratic. The case of Tagalog is very, very simple. When both the ethnicity and the language are called by the same name, then the articles are named "X language" and "X people". Whether there is a corresponding disambiguity page labelled "X" depends on other factors. Sometimes there is a redirect there to "X people", sometimes to "X language". But the two articles' titles are based on the simple and straightforward interpretation of
WP:NCLANG that the majority of editors subscribe to here. I do assume good faith, but that doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. --
Taivo (
talk) 08:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree that
I can be wrong. Disagree that my views on the relevancy of
WP:CONSENSUS are heretical to Wikipedia, you seem to be implying that I don't think that consensus is relevant, and that is just not true, it is relevant and that is non-negotiable. But
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that is an official Wikipedia policy. Agree that The notion that an admin can ignore a consensus with as much support as this one has is simply not in keeping with one of Wikipedia's primary pillars. But ignoring consensus has not been suggested, and certainly not by me. I don't think there is anything else there that is new.
Andrewa (
talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, it's all down to
WP:CONSENSUS for something as controversial as this. However good your argument is like in the failed
Talk:English#Requested move, if you cannot convince the community about the benefit of your Article Title, then it's really all down to the votes here.
- And to reiterate my position: The article title at
Tagalog language best meets all 5 criteria of our
WP:AT policy. It is not just
WP:PRECISE, it is also
WP:CONSISTENT with other language articles that share the same name as their ethnic groups, is
WP:RECOGNIZABLE and
WP:NATURAL, and finally, is not too
WP:CONCISE that it fails to identify the topic to the readers, which can be either the people or language as both sides here have conceded.--
RioHondo (
talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, and to reiterate my position (which I admit has changed a little during the discussion): The name Tagalog for the language meets the criteria for
primary meaning, and should therefore be the name of the article. The criteria employed by dictionaries for ordering their entries are not terribly relevant; We are not a dictionary. Tagalog language is an acceptable name but not the best name in terms of WP:AT, as it is unnecessarily disambiguated. No big deal really, and sorry if I've upset anyone, but to me it's a close but clear decision.
- And at the risk of
argument from silence, the presence of so many blatantly illogical arguments should give us cause to worry about the validity of the case for Tagalog language. I have been accused of wikilawyering, nitpicking and ignoring the other sides' arguments, whatever. My motivation is just to improve Wikipedia, see
User:Andrewa/Creed, and I have no time for such games. It has been strenuously argued that we should read only half of the opening paragraph of the relevant naming convention. Words fail me. Perhaps one side
doth protest too much, methink?
Andrewa (
talk) 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I find it incomprehensible that you claim you have proven that the language name is the primary topic. You have offered not a single shred of evidence for that. And your arguments are simply "
I choose to ignore the plain meaning of
WP:NCLANG because
I want to." You call our plain, simple, precise arguments "illogical" simply because you have nothing but wikilawyering to respond with. Yes, your arguments have changed over the course of the discussion because your own arguments were baseless, illogical, and contrary to facts, policy, and consensus. --
Taivo (
talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tagalog language is an acceptable name but not the best name in terms of WP:AT, as it is unnecessarily disambiguated. The language in
Tagalog language is unnecessary disambiguation you say? Clearly you are contradicting yourself again here when hours ago you said you agree with the majority that Tagalog is ambiguous.
1--
RioHondo (
talk) 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- And btw, isn't Primary topic also determined
with respect to long-term significance and not just on usage? It says the topic is considered primary if it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term." Don't tell me the ethnic group after whom the language was named has less educational value and no long-term significance compared to the language? In this regard, both topics are of equal weight and importance I must say, hence there is no primary topic as per obvious consensus here.--
RioHondo (
talk) 16:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there are two criteria for primary topic, but no conflict in this case. Again let's see what the guideline says. In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic. (My emphasis.) This is not such a case where there is conflict. With respect to long-term significance, as you say, In this regard, both topics are of equal weight and importance. Therefore, in this case only one sense of primacy is relevant... That is, usage. The guideline is quite clear.
- How you can argue hence there is no primary topic from that escapes me. What the guideline says is that if both topics are of equal weight and importance based on long-term significance, as you say they are and I agree, then we must decide based on usage. Instead you want to move directly to the conclusion that there is no primary topic, without considering usage.
- As for evaluating the consensus or otherwise above, I say again, that's for the closing admin to decide, not you or I. And again I say, they don't just count votes. They consider the arguments, and that includes deciding whether the guidelines and policies they cite are cited accurately.
Andrewa (
talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have changed my mind (very, very slightly) regarding ambiguity. That is part of the reason we have these discussions. It does not affect my "vote" on the matter, and it is a part of the process of developing understanding and building consensus.
Andrewa (
talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew has not really advanced the discussion, since every single one of his points has either been previously stated by the tiny number of people who want to ignore the plain sense of
WP:NCLANG or has been refuted. At this point, his most frequently pushed point is to beg the closing admin to ignore
WP:CONSENSUS and to side with the five editors who agree with him. --
Taivo (
talk) 22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree with all of this, obviously. Particularly, the plain sense of WP:NCLANG suggested seems to me to be a bizarre interpretation, particularly but not only because (as is admitted above) it requires us to ignore half of what it says.
- But among the name-calling above there are some good points made. It's up to the closing admin to try to sort them out. And we move on. Either name is acceptable. The
undisambiguated name is the better choice, and is supported by the guidelines provided they are read in full rather than quoted in selected parts.
Andrewa (
talk) 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's definitely not the better choice just because you like it. It is not supported by the plain reading of
WP:NCLANG nor is it supported by
WP:CONSENSUS. Don't you think it tells you something when your minority wikilawyered view of policy is opposed by an overwhelming majority of editors here, including admins and other editors who are just as experienced as you are? --
Taivo (
talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that it's definitely not the better choice just because you like it (my emphasis). Please stick to the issues. Discuss the content, not the contributor.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh so you want to discuss hierarchy now? That's just my opinion. There's nothing in the guideline that says what to do in the case of topics with "equal weight and importance." Cos then again, language is not the only thing that makes me a Tagalog. It is one of many. There's religion, customs, cuisine, history, social structure, etc apart from language that define a people or ethnic group, if you want to be technical about it. But in terms of educational value, I see the language as equally important as each and every one of those that makes me a Tagalog. So in this regard, one part or aspect is in conflict with the bigger picture, the sum total in the ethnolinguistic equation. That's basic sociology.--
RioHondo (
talk) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree that There's nothing in the guideline that says what to do in the case of topics with "equal weight and importance." There are two criteria. If one ranks the two as equal, then the other may still apply, so it needs to then be examined. And the evidence (and I haven't given any above, as others have given ample evidence and have not been refuted) is that, on the basis of usage (the other of the criteria), the language is indeed the primary meaning. Or that's my conclusion. I accept that yours differs.
- I also accept that you have a great personal interest in this article, an interest which I do not share. If I were writing the guidelines, this would be a consideration in your favour, and I'd similarly give companies a say in what their articles were called. But in fact
our guidelines do just the opposite, at present at least.
Andrewa (
talk) 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I did say I am a Tagalog representing the
Category:Tagalog Wikipedians. My interest is in the clear separation of equally important and related articles sharing the same name as the ethnic group I belong to. The language is not primary topic, in fact there's none, due to ambiguity and their equal relevance in the realm of the Tagalog. If something is ambiguous, it has to be disambiguated. And this is social science, not some commercial exercise where you have identical entities competing for the prime billboard spot. The primary objective here is to provide precision, as the unqualified title
would likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified. It's not only rational and benefitial, it's the way an encyclopedia is supposed to function in the first place.--
RioHondo (
talk) 03:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you have disclosed the potential conflict of interest, and satisfied that provision of the guideline, and that's good. Disagree with the rest of this, and it says nothing new.
Andrewa (
talk) 04:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is absurd to suggest that someones nationality could be a conflict of interest. You clearly dont know what Conflict of Interest actually means.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 04:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that I was not suggesting that RioHondo should in any way be restricted in contributing on this topic. Rather I was rebutting their claims to have privileged status in contributing in this area. I was saying that, if anything, it works the other way. You disagree?
Andrewa (
talk) 05:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I disagree. The fact that an editor knows more about a topic, in this case about whether the Tagalog language is named after the Tagalog ethnic group or vice versa, should probably mean that their arguments are weightier than the arguments of people argueing with no basis of knowledge - certainly never less.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 06:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- But there is no question of whether the Tagalog language is named after the Tagalog ethnic group or vice versa. It is generally agreed that the language is named after the people group. But that question is not relevant in terms of our naming and disambiguation conventions.
Andrewa (
talk) 06:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Since no one else wants to, you are welcome.
Ogress
smash! 06:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is relevant since that shows that the term is ambiguous and that the language is not in any meaningful sense the primary topic. Regardless of the fact that apparently some users
WP:DIDNTKNOWABOUTIT.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ· 07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whether one meaning is derived from another doesn't seem to be mentioned in the guidelines as a factor in determining which if either is the primary topic... have I missed it? Your second point escapes me too, that particular part of the guideline doesn't seem to say anything that would suggest that the language is not the primary topic.
Andrewa (
talk) 11:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
|