New York page move discussion

[Carcharoth]

Might be of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_ ... ve_request

Might also be a bit sleep-inducing/tl;dr.

The outcome is about to be decided (one more to report in of a three-person closing panel).
The waiting audience are on the edge of their seats.

[Zoloft]

The city so nice they named it twice.

Seriously Wikipedia needs to have an editorial staff and follow an industry-accepted style guide.

[Kelly Martin]

All this because Wikipedia's article naming paradigm never contemplated the idea of two entirely distinct articles having the same name.

[Hex]

Good grief. This Castncoot (T-C-L) person is unbelievably melodramatic (and verbose - something like 40 comments on that page alone).

The very foundation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia itself would be fractured by such a move... such a move would be disruptive and destructive to Wikipedia... disambiguation pages, which are essentially a death knell to viewership... [w]e can't afford to lose any more readers... the status quo actually accomplishes several beneficial features for Wikipedia as well as the global populace... [t]he consequences would have reverberating, devastating consequences all around...

WE'RE DOOMED

(Hey Zoloft, can we add this as :panic:?)

[Carcharoth]

Seguing onwards to MoS (Manual of Style) oddities, dare I mention WP:NOTUSA (T-H-L)? an attempt to document past discussion

[Carcharoth]

All this because Wikipedia's article naming paradigm never contemplated the idea of two entirely distinct articles having the same name.

To be fair, in your hypothetical alternative system, what happens when someone searches for "John Smith"? Does the system just barf up a list of pages with that name? Is John Smith (T-H-L) any more useful?

[Jim]

All this because Wikipedia's article naming paradigm never contemplated the idea of two entirely distinct articles having the same name.

To be fair, in your hypothetical alternative system, what happens when someone searches for "John Smith"? Does the system just barf up a list of pages with that name? Is John Smith (T-H-L) any more useful?

WE'RE FUCKING DOOMED

It was the hypotheticals what got us.

[Kelly Martin]

All this because Wikipedia's article naming paradigm never contemplated the idea of two entirely distinct articles having the same name.

To be fair, in your hypothetical alternative system, what happens when someone searches for "John Smith"? Does the system just barf up a list of pages with that name? Is John Smith (T-H-L) any more useful?

Still easier to deal with in a system that allows for more than one article to have the same name, especially if you have decent search capabilities. The way Wikipedia does disambiguation pages and disambiguation tagging is a contrivance to fix one of the several problems created by making an article's name its unique identifier in the software.

Similar benefits would accrue by allowing an article to have multiple names, or indeed no name at all.

[Poetlister]

The city so nice they named it twice.

Seriously Wikipedia needs to have an editorial staff and follow an industry-accepted style guide.

Doesn't the magnificent Wikipedia Manual of Style make provision for this sort of thing?

[Zoloft]

The city so nice they named it twice.

Seriously Wikipedia needs to have an editorial staff and follow an industry-accepted style guide.

Doesn't the magnificent Wikipedia Manual of Style make provision for this sort of thing?

To quote somebody or other, "Did I fucking stutter?"

[Casliber]

All this because Wikipedia's article naming paradigm never contemplated the idea of two entirely distinct articles having the same name.

To be fair, in your hypothetical alternative system, what happens when someone searches for "John Smith"? Does the system just barf up a list of pages with that name? Is John Smith (T-H-L) any more useful?

Still easier to deal with in a system that allows for more than one article to have the same name, especially if you have decent search capabilities. The way Wikipedia does disambiguation pages and disambiguation tagging is a contrivance to fix one of the several problems created by making an article's name its unique identifier in the software.

Similar benefits would accrue by allowing an article to have multiple names, or indeed no name at all.

I've noticed that some foreign language wikipedias have a subtitle - generally the scientific name of an article (organism) at its common name. I've not looked into it though.

[Earthy Astringent]

I from Lawn Guyland

[Ming]

The city so nice they named it twice.

Seriously Wikipedia needs to have an editorial staff and follow an industry-accepted style guide.

Doesn't the magnificent Wikipedia Manual of Style make provision for this sort of thing?

The source for 66% of stupid article move arguments is WP:COMMONNAME; WP:PRIMARY accounts for the other 33%. These principles all but demand these kind of fights.

[Carcharoth]

This is still continuing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =740813826

Any estimates on how much time has been spent on this?

[SB_Johnny]

This is still continuing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =740813826

Any estimates on how much time has been spent on this?

About 95 to 100 times too much would be my guess, but I'm not a horologist.

[Carcharoth]

To be fair, some of the discussion was focused on fixing some of the links pointing at the articles. The ones intended to point to the city were pointing at the state. The sheer number of links (thousands are wrong, and tens of thousands to check) made it somewhat of a heroic effort of using AWB and a bot. Plus some method of piping redirects (to label what had already been checked) that got some people annoyed, until it was explained to them what was going on (and even then, some remained upset).

The whole issue of "large numbers of X needing to be checked periodically, but Wikipedia has no reliable way of indicating that something [in this case a link] has been checked so people keep checking and re-checking and wasting time checking what others have already checked" is not a new one. I suspect some long-term measure will be needed to address that before Wikipedia gets much larger. (Though fundamentally, Wikipedia relies on large sets of eyes silently checking and rechecking everything.)

Or, more likely, people will give up on such things.

[thekohser]

(Though fundamentally, Wikipedia relies on large sets of eyes silently checking and rechecking everything.)

And rechecking, and rechecking, and rechecking. Because nobody has the courage or proper priorities in place to shut down, or at least restrict, the "anyone can edit" phase of generating a reliable and accurate encyclopedia as was the initial plan.

[Carcharoth]

Good God! The whole world will grind to a halt as productivity nosedives as everyone spends their time checking and rechecking Wikipedia...

[Botto]

This move was rather frustrating, as was its reversal, as now most articles link to a redirect page.

Good grief. This Castncoot (T-C-L) person is unbelievably melodramatic (and verbose - something like 40 comments on that page alone).

The very foundation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia itself would be fractured by such a move... such a move would be disruptive and destructive to Wikipedia... disambiguation pages, which are essentially a death knell to viewership... [w]e can't afford to lose any more readers... the status quo actually accomplishes several beneficial features for Wikipedia as well as the global populace... [t]he consequences would have reverberating, devastating consequences all around...

WE'RE DOOMED

(Hey Zoloft, can we add this as :panic:?)

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!