Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep now that it is re-tagged as an essay. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy


At best, this manifesto is an WP:ESSAY representing the view of its author; it is in no way a supplement to our policy on article titles, or any other page as it, purports to be. In fact, suggesting that the policy on article titles is inferior to any style guideline fails WP:POLCON, which states, “If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.” Because it conflicts with established policy, I believe the page in question should be userfied or deleted since, per WP:ESSAY, "Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see WP:USERESSAY), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic."  Calidum   01:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's an essay, and it states an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The page might be fine if it were an essay and wasn't be presented as an information page (supplement). WP:SUPPLEMENTAL plainly states "Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way." The page in question fails all those points.  Calidum   04:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep—it says clearly at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." What's not clear? Tony (talk)  12:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because way too many editors and closers present and point to essays as guidelines. This page is an opinion of one editor (I tried to read through it but got lost in the wall of textness length, so, as an opinion essay, I really don't want to use time to build a mental map of the page and don't know what it's trying to say, and I'm not commenting keep or delete until someone adequately summarizes the thing. It certainly isn't a vetted page). The problem of attributing importance to essays on Wikipedia seems quite large, and closers really should be directed to take essays with a grain of salt (and use less salt). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 22:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but per the concerns raised, the Template:Supplement should be removed. The page is ok as an essay, but shouldn't claim it's "an explanatory supplement" for such important policies since it doesn't have such wide acceptance in the community. Per the documentation of supplement, we have: and from guideline page WP:NS4:  So it's quite clear supplement should only be used on an essay which have wide acceptance in the community, (for instance, Here to build an encyclopedia is an essay which uses supplement the right way, since it's widely accepted to the point many assume it's a policy page.) –Ammarpad (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, in the project namespace. An essay possibly needing a different essay tag atop it, and someone not liking the essay or agreeing with people who refer to it frequently, is not any kind of deletion rationale. (The nominator is frequently on the wrong side of consensus discussions that involve style matters, perhaps verging on a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem.) The very purpose of essays on policy matters is to consolidate and provide a shortcut to an argument, a line of reasoning, that is tedious to manually re-re-re-explain (and read) over and over again when it is relevant (which is very frequently, in the case of this essay). No one cites this like a policy, they simply refer to it as the locus of a well-explained, common argument. The fact that is is mentioned more frequently by more editors in a broader range of contexts now than even a year ago is not a problem of any kind, but proof of increased consensus that its argument is correct. (No one's been able to refute it, after all.) There's not even a userspacing rationale, since this does not in any way conflict with WP policy and consensus, but backs both. It explains clearly why "WP, on my pet topic, must be written exactly like specialist publications write about it" is an argument that consensus rejects about 1000 times per year.
 * Keep, tagged as Essay. There is certainly no case for deletion, and not even for userfication.  This is a taggery dispute. There is indeed a problem with the supplement tag.  It fails the basic criteria: the policies it claims to supplement do not link to it.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Userfy. But if it must stay in the main space, definitely change the tag.  It's a fine essay, but I would prefer it to be userfied, to remove it from the Wikipedia space (which grants it more prominence than it deserves), but at the least, it should not be tagged as a supplement to existing policy, but with a tag that makes it clear this is not a widely accepted and used essay.  Userfication would be best, but either way if we keep this in the Wikipedia space we need to change the header.  Wikipedia-space essays or explanatory supplements are best for ones like WP:DENY or WP:BRD, which carry the force of authority for their widespead use.  Essays like this are fine, and I don't think it needs to be expunged, but it shouldn't be pretending to carry the same weight as other such essays or explanatory supplements that people cite and use because they represent widespread practice.  -- Jayron 32 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in Wikipedia space – There is nothing "problematic" about this essay. It is well written and widely accepted, and an important aid in clarifying the dangers of balkanised, jargonised style. Essays do not have any special authority, and when they are cited by people in discussions, it is not as an appeal to authority, but because the relevant essay provides reasoning that they agree with and think is relevant. This essay is widely cited across the project precisely because it does have wide support, and because it is a rational interpretation of our existing policies. By nominating this essay for deletion, the nominator is launching another prong in his general offensive on Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the Manual of Style. Do not facilitate this disruption by deleting the valuable resource that is this essay. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it's currently presented as supplement to policy, not as an essay. --В²C ☎ 17:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as essay not as supplement to policy. It does not reflect community consensus. It reflects one side of a highly controversial issue on WP. --В²C ☎ 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Reconsidered. See below. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and retain as supplement to policy. Upon re-reading it I realized I misunderstood what it was saying when I first skimmed it. I think some examples would help make its meaning more obvious. But my understanding now is that when there is a conflict in style about how a particular term is presented between general reliable sources and reliable sources that specialize in the area of the term in question, this essay says WP should follow usage in the general sources. I think that does reflect community consensus and is consistent with WP:AT, WP:CRITERIA, etc. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe your original thought was correct. Consider the overview in the nutshell on the top of the page: “Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community.” That seems to say all reliable sources, not just specialized ones, should be ignored when it comes to article titles because the MOS takes precedence.  Calidum   18:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, well maybe I got my initial (mis) understanding from reading just the nutshell. Hmm. --В²C ☎ 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed the nutshell to reflect the content of the essay: "How content is styled should follow usage in general reliable sources rather than those specialized for the topic in question". --В²C ☎ 19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My change was reverted. I started a discussion the essay's talk page. --В²C ☎ 21:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep—what a ridicuolous rationale to delete. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep—this essay has value, and it supplements various policies or guidelines well.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.