Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01 Science fiction

Who are the involved parties?
User:Matthew, User:Mike Christie, User:RLetson, User:Belg4mit, User:Shsilver. Others have been involved in prior discussions and may join in. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure where to put this, but: I agree to mediation. Matthew 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
Matthew asserts that "sf" and "SF" are (a) pejorative abbreviations for "science fiction", and (b) too informal to be appropriate for use in the article. He has repeatedly removed these abbreviations from the article and replaced them with "science fiction". Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Personally I don't agree with either assertion and think that either "sf" or "SF" should be used on the page to avoid clunky repetitions of "science fiction". No editor on Talk:Science fiction has supported Matthew on (a), and many have directly disagreed. At least one has supported him on (b), but it appears to still be a minority position.

What I'd like to change is to get to a consensus on what form we use for the repetitions of "science fiction" throughout the article; "sf", "SF", "sci-fi", or "science fiction", and then stick to it. At this point Matthew's opinion is sufficiently different from others that there does not seem to be any possibility of agreement, and Matthew does not indicate enough faith in the validity of others' opinions to concede.

Example talk sections: Talk:Science_fiction, Talk:Science fiction (which includes links to other discussions), Talk:Science fiction, and User talk:Mike Christie. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response
I think that this is a problem consensus from within the talk page can solve, and from the looks of the talk page, it looks like most everyone, with the exception of 2 users (out of about 10), supports the use of SF and sf in place of "science fiction." This looks like a clear-cut consensus to me. Also, if consensus is declared as such, you can officially label Matthew's edits as vandalism. I think this is safe to close. Diez2 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After a summary review of the article and discussion page, the following reflects my understanding of the matter so far. If any of this is incorrect or unbalanced, corrections and clarifications are welcome.

Facts not under dispute:
 * The optional alternative renderings of the term "science fiction" are: 1) "SF" 2) "sf" 3) "sci-fi";
 * The above alternatives are exhaustive, no one is proposing anything else;
 * Regardless of the final determination, all contibutors agree the article should employ consistent usage throughout;

Disputed facts:
 * 1) The optional alternatives are all pejorative vs. none of them is pejorative;
 * 2) The optional altneratives are too informal vs. they are all acceptable;
 * 3) The optional alternatives are potentially confusing vs. no potential for confusion exists;

Observations:
 * At the time of this writing, the article does not include "sf" (lower-case ess eff) in the lead section as one of the common abbreviations;
 * Although the optional orthography has featured prominently in the editorial dispute, no contributor has yet offered a citation to an external source that develops this dispute, or substantiates that any of the abbreviations are pejorative, preferred or associated with any specific sub-genre or sub-culture;
 * Although the article discusses both fandom and jargon, this matter of the optional alternatives is not mentioned there;
 * The numerous references and related links to external sources tends to substantiate that, indeed, alternate usage is not uncommon;

Opinion: A reasonably informed and intelligent reader who is nonetheless unfamiliar with Science Fiction would be interested to know if there is some special nuance (if any) with the alternate usage. Moreover, if the lead section prominently indicates the alternate abbreviations, that alleviates the potential for confusion. Although "science fiction" is indeed unambiguous, and "SF" indeed may imply "San Francisco" to some readers, it does not seem inconsistent with WP guidelines to employ abbreviations in article text in the manner proposed here.

Initial conclusion: Barring an incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. It seems entirely appropriate to: 1) clarify the lead paragraph and prominently indicate the alternative usage; 2) require some form of citation or substantiation to support the claim that the alternatives carry a negative connotation; 3) include that claim in the relevant sections of the article (if prior step is met); and 4) encourage a consistent orthography throughout the entire article (unless it can also be cited and shown that specific sub-cultures employ specific usages).

Only disputed fact "1)" is not readily resolved by WP guidelines and policy. Additionally, the views expressed on the discussion page suggest the burden of evidence resides with those contributors who claim the alternatives are disparaging. Absent such evidence, the claim seems unsubstantiated.

Support from relevant guidelines and policy: Accessible content, Naming conventions, Lead section (see especially "establish context" and "accessible overview") . dr.ef.tymac 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to mediator
It seems too soon to close the issue. The mediation request was only lodged this morning. This is the first I heard of it, and already it is closed?

Certainly sf is not perjorative in any arena I have heard of, and I use it myself regularly within science fiction fandom. But it seems too informal for an encyclopedia. I prefer the use of "science fiction" because, first, nobody finds the phrase objectionable and, second, everybody knows what it means. To most readers, I suspect that SF suggests San Francisco. Rick Norwood 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Within the context of this article, I see no reason to believe that the typical reader will read "SF" as San Francisco. -- Orange Mike 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)