Wikipedia talk:Adjectives in your recommendations

Location
If this essay is going to be in the project space it should probably be re-written to not be in first person without the signature, so others are more free to edit it as they see necessary. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
I agree, I find those adjectives annoying as well. I have a few suggestions for the essay:


 * changing the page name to "Adjectives in your recommendations" along with changing the word within the essay


 * noting the two exceptions Speedy keep and Speedy delete


 * adding Reply and Question as emboldened lead words that are not annoying (or at least, I don't find them so)

Neutral I find a bit odd, it's almost an adjectival version of comment. A comment is probably suggesting keeping or deletion where the commenter is treating AfD as a discussion and WP:NOTAVOTE, but if someone is truly "neutral," why bother commenting? Don't vote on everything and follow WP:SILENCE; i.e. add a comment or recommendation if you disagree with either the nomination or an argument made against the nomination, but if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything at all.

I sometimes see Snowball used as an adjective. Keep/Delete: WP:SNOWBALL is perhaps a somewhat better formulation. Quite pathetic when it is one of the first few responses to the nomination, more logical when it follows quite a few. Such a WP:VAGUEWAVE isn't especially good, an "argument without an argument," but if in fact it is obvious to everyone but the most clueless what the outcome is going to be, Snowball Keep/Delete is essentially an understandable call for an early close. Though oddly, I see WP:EARLY is a failed proposal - but it still gets done, doesn't it? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that 'Speedy' is a valid adjective to add to a 'Delete' !vote (though it makes little sense to add to a 'Keep' !vote). This is an indication that the AFD could be closed quickly as the article meets speedy deletion criteria.  'Speedy' should only be used when the appropriate speedy deletion tag has already been added to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanded
I have given this essay some much needed improvement and expansion. I have removed the first person style of the original (see my earlier comment above), which was not really appropriate for a project space essay, given that essays present in this namespace should be editable by others, per WP:ESSAYS. The essay is also at a rather generic title, but was rather one sided, so I have added an alternative viewpoint with a neutral introduction added. Furthermore, the arguments of this essay do not just apply to deletion discussions, but also to discussion elsewhere such as at WP:RFA, so I have changed the essay tag from to. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting
Good essay and it makes sense, if only parts of it didn't contradict so much with WP:NOTAVOTE. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like it. I considered changing the references to voting given the controversy the term causing, with AfD in particular not being a vote, though I decided to leave it and add a sentence about it to the lead section. One possible change suggested above is to make the essay "Adjectives in your recommendations", though I thought that editors may be confused on what the essay is about after first reading such a title. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 08:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It also contradicts a lot of history. These things have been around for roughly three quarters of a decade. See this edit from 2004 documenting existing practice. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't describe it as a contradiction, given that the essay doesn't deny that adjectives have been in use for a long-time, and that the original essay dates from 2006. I would agree however that the first part of the essay, particularly "Why do users do this?", is inaccurate to the history. I wasn't around in 2004 and didn't have time to dig through the history to find more meat to put on the rebuttal (second part of the essay), though I will add this evidence to the essay now. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What if...
What if we were to do something like this:
 * Strong Keep this is an obvious keep because of WP:myargument...
 * Weak Keep It seems like it is well sourced but notability is borderline
 * Strong Delete blatant advertising per WP:ADV
 * Weak Delete Might be willing to change my position if better sources are found.

Or alternatively:
 * Keep (strong) this is an obvious keep because of WP:myargument...
 * Keep (weak) It seems like it is well sourced but notability is borderline
 * Delete (strong) blatant advertising per WP:ADV
 * Delete (weak) Might be willing to change my position if better sources are found.

The idea here is that someone can express the "strength" of their position but simply "bolding" the position at the same time. It also allows for easy glance and more full expressions.

Comments?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I unfortunately missed this comment. I agree that not bolding adjectives is more sensible, and might be less likely to offend users. However, the thrust of the original essay (against adjectives) seemed to want them not used at all, bold or not. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I randomly arrived here. I am not an admin. Not very experienced editor either. In the end, I would like his article being improved but I do not feel strongly about good or bad changes (I do not care that much because I am not an admin with authority to delete). My commonsense tells me that impact is subjective. Currently article is written in a way that seems like trying to convince readers to not use adjectives. I find it subjective. leave aside the conventions for a moment (I do not know those anyway, I do not have that experience yet). Weather adjectives matter or not depends on how hwo the guidelines are defined. Every thing is subject to definitions, definitions matters. I also liked with Paul's suggestion. He has defined delete or keep on granular level (strong or weak), which makes sense to me, the way he explained. This is not reflected in the article. Second half of article is sort of written with a bias towards justification of first half. I do not want to hurt the feelings of editors who put hard work to write this. I apologize. I will rule myself out from making changes to this article. I want to request, specially CT Cooper (because he seems to be most active and significant contributor to this article, hence best suited), to please enhance it and make it more flexible. Specially, avoid passing a final verdict that adjectives do not matter, it seems forced in the second half of the article. They would matter if guidelines were defined differently, if we go by suggestion by Paul McDonald. Apologies if I have trespassed in an Admin area where I am not permitted to comment. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Thanks for your selfless efforts to contribute to the society through wikipedia. Regards. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Page moved
Since it has been suggested previously and the issue of the title seems to come up on most discussions on this essay, I have moved it to the title suggested above. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)