Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:49, 8 December 2012

I have to say that the format of these RFC/U's is more than bizarre, and is set up more like a lynch mob than anything else. The fact is that I follow guidelines and policies. The fact is that there is a procedure to change those guidelines and policies and I follow that procedure. If someone does not like me or anyone else doing that, then that is absurd. End of story. Apteva (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Desired outcome

There are always disputes and there always need to be appropriate ways to propose changes. A section will be added to the MOS for those proposed changes. Stifling suggestions is never appropriate. Apteva (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Sorry but this is absolutely absurd. Hyphens are used exclusively in airport names and comet names, and by a 50:1 margin in bridges and wars, such as in Mexican-American War. How can anyone call that an overwhelming consensus to use an endash? The overwhelming consensus is the opposite - to use a hyphen, and the MOS needs to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is comet Hale-Bopp, and Mexican-American War. Spell it correctly. Apteva (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Outside view by Kurtis

• The problem is that I would guess that easily 90% of editors neither know nor care to know the difference between a hyphen and an endash. I happen to be one of those who are fully aware of the difference and the correct use of each. There is no style guide in the real world, or grammar guide, that says that Mexican-American War is spelled with an endash, because it simply is not spelled with one 98% of the time - in books that could just as easily used whatever they chose, endash or hyphen, whichever they thought was more correct. Some style guides occasionally give bad advice. Ours is one that is doing that now. The examples of "Delhi–Sidney flight" and "North Carolina–Virginia border" are correct, but if either should become a proper noun, such as "Mexican-American War", or "Roman-Persian Wars", the spelling would change to a hyphen. The hyphen is conveniently located on all keyboards and should be encouraged as a valid option, instead of making everyone use an endash, even when an endash is correct, and using an endash when a hyphen is required, such as in the name of an airport, such as Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, or in a comet, such as Hale-Bopp, is patently absurd. Apteva (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not Apteva, I actually agree with you in principle. That's beside the point. The fact is, we have to abide by widely accepted academic standards because Misplaced Pages is an academic source (well... in its own special way, it is), no matter how pedantic they may seem. And I'm afraid you're incorrect in your assertion that "there is no style guide in the real world...that says that Mexican-American War is spelled with an endash", as the external links I've provided have demonstrated. You are also wrong when you say that "a hyphen is required" for things such as the Seattle–Tacoma International Airport or the Hale–Bopp comet, as I've already explained above. Colloquially, of course I don't worry about hyphens and dashes — the former is readily available on my keyboard, and so I use it. It's just not worth wasting all the extra time trying to change something which even you would admit is of such little importance. Kurtis (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    Please check the sources and provide a specific link to a style guide that uses Mexican-American War as an example of using an endash. Dictionaries spell it with a hyphen, why would any style guide pretend it was spelled with an endash? Using a hyphen instead of an endash is of little importance. Misusing a hyphen with an endash in your own publication is of no importance. Anyone who reads a book that misspells the comet Hale-Bopp with an endash can simply grit their teeth and ignore it. But Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can and will get corrected. Readers attempted to fix Mexican-American War to use a hyphen half a dozen times, and will certainly continue to attempt to fix it in the future. We have a policy on naming articles that says to use the most common usage, and that is clearly a hyphen, by a 50:1 margin. Choosing to spell it the way only 2% spell it just goes completely against the way Misplaced Pages does things. As to comets, it is black and white - there is an actual naming authority that arbitrates comet names and they state that only spaces and hyphens are used. A half a dozen editors who know nothing about the subject are holding hostage to the idea that the wrong punctuation is correct, a simply absurd position. Apteva (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I leave the burden of proof to you, Apteva. Explicitly refute what I and others have been saying using links of your own, rather than repeating the same argument ad nauseaum without really backing it up. Kurtis (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is pointless. You say, see, here is how endashes are used, they all say the same thing. And none use goofy examples that are false like to spell a comet or Mexican-American War with an endash. All use valid examples of using endashes. Look at the RM's that were proposed. All use countless examples showing that a hyphen is the correct choice. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided by Kurtis don't contradict Apteva's view, and they contradict our MOS in several points:

• http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/dashes.asp most common usages of dash are "periods of time when you might otherwise use to" and " in place of a hyphen when combining open compounds"
• http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp and it recommends a comma between two adjectives where you can replace it with "and", our MOS recommends a dash
• http://cutewriting.blogspot.ca/2008/06/en-dash-em-dash-and-hyphen.html#axzz2DkahPVln endash is only for "a range of values or a distance" and "compound adjectives in which the two participant terms themselves are compound"
• http://www.jpetrie.net/2011/06/04/the-en-dash-vs-the-hyphen-examples-for-more-precise-english-usage/ Hyphen and dash are interchangeable, there are only a few situations where hyhen it's unacceptable, the situations listed don't fit the names of borders, airports, comets, etc.
• http://www.dashhyphen.com/ compounds are only made with hyphens, dashes are only to separate sentences

Meanwhile, I have provided dozens of reliable sources that explicitly say that comet names are hyphenated, including astronomical publications, and supporters of dash compounds have refused to take them into account. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Outside view by Andy Dingley

Misplaced Pages has no reason to incorrectly use dashes where hyphens are correctly used. Like most editors, hyphens are normally entered directly from the keyboard. A very small number of editors take the trouble to enter dashes instead. A small number of editors correct hyphens to dashes where dashes are correctly used, such as in a paragraph of text where someone writes, the Beatles from 1964-70 is correctly corrected to 1964–70, or 1964–1970. There are also a small number of editors who have decided that dashes can be correctly applied to comets, wars, airports, and bridges. None of those are correct. There are two objections that I have. I personally think that dashes should not be used in article titles. Hyphens are only about three pixels shorter than endashes and are much easier to use in titles. But that is a totally separate issue. The second issue and much more important issue is to use hyphens where hyphens are correct, and use dashes where dashes are correct. It is not rocket science. Check current use. If someone finds that Mexican-American War is spelled with a hyphen by a 50:1 margin, use a hyphen on Misplaced Pages. If someone finds that comets are spelled with a hyphen by the naming authority, the IAU, use a hyphen. Anything else is absurd. But also, hyphens are a suitable substitute for dashes, and WP should lighten up on thinking that they have to be corrected. Fix them in FA's and FAC's, but leave them alone, or make them be consistent on GA's and all other articles (if there is one, leave it, if there are two, fix the hyphen into a dash, if more do whichever anyone does first - make them all hyphens or all dashes, but if they are all hyphens, leave them as hyphens). Apteva (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem in a nutshell:

1. The "small" number of editors you disagree with represent the current consensus.
2. You are an even smaller number of editor who has decided that that consensus is incorrect.
3. Despite knowing that consensus disagrees with you, you rely on your claimed correctness to turn your disruptive editing pattern into something acceptable.

It doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that errors need to be corrected, and there needs to be and is an orderly manner of making those corrections, a procedure which I am following. Whether I am correct or not is not the question. The question is are hyphens or dashes used in airports, comets, wars, and bridges? It is trivial to show that hyphens and not dashes are used in all four. It is idiotic to hold fast to any other position. Should I quote Kotniski? "I'm feeling a great sense of relief that I won't be spending tomorrow or the next day arguing with morons about trivia." Does this ring a bell? Or this? "I am no longer willing to subject myself to the abuse that is the price for participating in Misplaced Pages" It is the incivility that is a problem at MOS, and I am not one of those being incivil. I am fully aware that half of the population has half the intelligence that I have, and I have no problem with that. I recognize that for anyone in the upper half of the intelligence spectrum they have just as much trouble explaining themself as those in the lower half have in understanding things. One of my strengths is the ability to explain things in a manner that makes them easily understood by anyone. But seriously, Misplaced Pages has a responsibility to be accurate and correct, and I see no reason to be sanctioned for wanting to see this happens. This is not stupedia, although there is a wiki that is somewhat like that. Apteva (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, and I assume the others as well, understand that points you are making, but you are using sources of different type of expertise from what you are arguing against. If you haven't yet I suggest you read this essay. While I understand it is by someone you are having a disagreement with, it does a good job of covering why your well researched arguments and data are being discounted. PaleAqua (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages decides the names of articles by two sources - official names and common usage. Both show that comets, bridges, wars, and airports are spelled with hyphens. I have traced the source of the MOS to wanting to use endashes to comments like "they look better", and "to make it clear that it wasn't (or at least not especially) a war about Mexican-Americans, but rather between Mexicans and Americans". Both of which are complete malarky. As to specialist sources, I do a lot of work at WP:RM, and often the question comes up of specialist sources, and generally we prefer to use what would be more commonly used, but that is what wp:rm is for, to discuss titles. There is nothing in wikipedia that is "settled" and not available for discussion. Discussing constantly - no, but bringing it up from time to time, absolutely. The point though, is not that my points are being discounted, but that they are not even discussed. Apteva (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is where we are talking past each other. You are arguing that the punctuation is part of the spelling of the name, the majority of others in the discussion so far are arguing that it is part of style. Thus, regardless of how many examples you show with it spelled with a hyphen those on the other side don't it as argument against a style decision and thus give little weight to that data. Reiterating the same data and points will not change the opinions. You will need to prove that it is an issue of spelling and not style. You are merely asserting that. PaleAqua (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Discussing constantly - no". Bingo! That is what this RfC is about. Do agree you are discussing constantly despite the consensus against you, and if not, why aren't you refuting that accusation? Nobody will ban you just for liking hyphens. Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. I brought it up in August or so and there has been very little real discussion on the issue. I have better things to do than to discuss it constantly, and so does everyone else. I asked for mediation, and no one even wanted to find out the proper answer by participating. But the issue of style vs. spelling is an important, but secondary question. Even if punctuation was considered style, WP does not normally choose styles that no one else uses, but certainly not using title case for headings is a case where we do. But as I see it there are two choices, create problems or solve problems. My choice is the latter every time. Using dashes where hyphens are more appropriate does nothing but cause problems and serves absolutely no purpose. Apteva (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You definitely don't constantly discuss en dashes? Here is a more statistically precise answer to that question. I searched your edits for any significant edits related to en dashes versus hyphens, with no attempt to distinguish justifiable from unjustifiable edits on that subject. To save time, I searched only Sept. 15, Oct. 1, Oct. 15, Nov. 1, and Nov. 15. I selected those dates just because they were the beginnings and middles of the months in question, so they may be considered a random sample. I found:

Sept. 15: none

Oct. 1: none

Oct. 15:

Nov. 1:

Nov. 15: (?)

So on a typical day, it is likely for you to discuss en dashes, usually in several places simultaneously. I think that can reasonably be summarized as "discussing constantly". And that, along with denying obvious points like the one I'm making now, is why people who don't care about dashes are turning against you. It also helps explain why people have pretty much stopped trying to refute your opinion about dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has been a recent topic, but no it does not need to drag on forever. I would think it could be resolved in a month tops. But only if both sides are willing to discuss the issue, instead of simply opening RFC/U's and AN/I's every time the topic comes up, and instead of otherwise acting inappropriately. Also it needs wider community input, instead of being decided by just a dozen users. That is the purpose of the RM's, to elicit more input. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat better: this time you at least recognized the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the incivility at the MOS. The problem is not treating other editors with respect and dignity. The problem is not focusing on the content and focusing on the contributors. The problem is opening bogus RFC/U's and ANI's instead of discussing the issue, which is that hyphens and endashes are not currently correctly used in Misplaced Pages in three examples in the MOS. Fix those problems. I am not the problem. I am attempting to fix a problem. Apteva (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true you have treated the other editors with disrespect and have opened at least one bogus AN/I, which backfired against you, but the problem is that you continue to go counter to the consensus. Now claiming that all of your disruptive editing was a simple attempt to draw attention to this "error" does not make it non-disruptive; there are other venues for requesting comments from wider audiences if you disagree with the consensus in one area. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If I thought the AN/I was bogus I would not have opened it. The editor in question had violated the sanctions of the Arbcom. That is not a bogus AN/I. I will remind everyone that I do not consider it disruptive to call attention to an error, and if anyone does, the correct process is to bring that to my attention on my talk page, not at the MOS talk page. The problem is incivility at the MOS and I am not one of those creating that incivility, nor did I fall into that pattern of behaviour at the MOS. The very description of it being disruptive was itself disruptive. To be perfectly clear, I treat everyone with complete respect. I do not treat false premises with respect. I focus on content, not on contributors, and that is exactly what needs to happen at the MOS. I do not agree that it can be said that there is a "consensus" to use endashes where hyphens are more appropriate. I do agree that approximately 10/12 editors agreed to do that, but that is out of hundreds of thousands of editors, who were not polled and whose view is unknown. While this is the second time that you have said "there are other venues", you yourself closed the RM at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9#Requested move which to me is an entirely appropriate venue. You have suggested VPP, which I will pursue, but it would be appropriate to in the meantime leave the RM open. Apteva (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all symptoms of the same problem: you don't have to think it's bogus; this AN/I was bogus whether you think so or not. You don't have to consider your behavior to be disruptive in order for it to be disruptive. You don't have to deem the consensus style guidelines correct before we adhere to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've struck my own name from the heading here, because Apteva's comments on it appear to be utterly irrelevant to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Mike Cline

All I can say is wow. I have been doing RCP and RM for quite a few years. I never think I have the right view, and the first thing that I did is extensively read through all of the pages at WP:TITLE to come up to speed with RM. When it comes to hyphens and dashes, though, they are trivial to show which is right. Apteva (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much confirms Mike's observations. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What? In all the years I have been doing RM I have had two complaints. One because they did not want me to change their post for WP:RM, so I left it as is, and one, recently who complained because they did not understand that I was helping them, when they used the wrong section of WP:RM to request a move. What Mike said was "I don’t think Apteva understands that." However that could not be farther from the truth. I fully understand that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative venture and we use consensus decision making. That does not mean "we do not discuss things". Nor does it mean "we always get things right the first time". Hyphens and dashes can be trivially shown to a case where the MOS currently has errors. Fix them and move on. Am I always right? No. Am I right this time? Probably. Apteva (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, I meant that your "When it comes to hyphens and dashes, though, they are trivial to show which is right" confirms Mike's "Yet Apteva thinks and acts as if his position is always the right position. Within the WP editor community, consensus and the willingness to achieve consensus is a paramount objective. I don’t think Apteva understands that." Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing whether to use hyphens or endashes is like discussing whether 2+3=5. There are certainly other possibilities, but none likely. Apteva (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or to make it more obvious, like discussing whether 2377+3816=6192. Apteva (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Wikid77

What relevance does this have to the issue at hand?

• Apteva disagrees with current consensus over dashes
• Apteva is acting disruptively as a response to this

Wikid77's view refers only to the disagreement. I don't happen to disagree with the views expressed by it. I couldn't even be said to disagree with Apteva.

However this RfC is about the second point, Apteva's refusal to behave cooperatively with the outcome of the guideline decision re hyphens. We do not (and I hope we never do) censure editors for disagreeing with style guides, but Apteva has gone past this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikid77 also runs off the rails with this claim "the minority punctuation experts who disagree with the majority of other editors attempting to wp:OWN the wp:MOS guideline." People who agree with you are not necessarily experts, while people who disagree with you might be experts. It's trying to force the guideline to agree with the minority "experts" against consensus that closes in on WP:OWN violation. Keeping the guidelines reflecting the current consensus, even if done by us knuckle-dragging troglodyte mob members, is not a WP:OWN violation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also confused by Wikid77's insistence that compounds like Italian-American be hyphenated and not dashed. Not because he's wrong but because no one is arguing that Italian-American should be dashed. It appears that Wikid77 doesn't actually understand the rule against which he's railing. Powers 13:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, W is simply suggesting that a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages is to do things the way most people do - and oddly this was broken in writing the endash guideline. Apteva (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre – What is Wikid77 smoking? He has made up non-existent problems to argue against. I guess Apteva's anti-en-dash anti-MOS campaign has led him to think that people are pushing to use en dashes where hyphens would be correct???? And how can Enric Naval and Blueboar agree with him? Did they not read what he wrote? Why can't we discuss actual problems instead of making up stupid strawmen to complain about? Nobody has ever suggested using en dashes in hyphenated surnames or in "Italian-American person" or in other inappropriate ways that he suggests. Apteva's objections to en dashes are much more narrow, based on a theory that they should never appear as part of proper names, and that he doesn't like to see them in titles; and the problem is not his objections, but his disruptive behavior in repeated pushing those objections with no support. Wikid77's nonsense doesn't even count as support, since he doesn't even have a clue what the issues are. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to think about Wikid77. This is just mind boggling: to Apteva, Wikid77 writes: "What some other editors fail to understand is that when you disagree with the so-called "consensus" to force dashes, then that consensus is over, and a new compromise with you should be sought." Someone needs to re-read WP:CONSENSUS. Powers 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good question: "Why can't we discuss actual problems". The answer to that is that people who write such questions refuse to act civilly and refuse to actually discuss those problems. The issue that attracted me to the MOS was the bizarre idea of spelling airports with an endash. It turns out that there was an even more bizarre idea - spelling comets with an endash, which just becomes ludicrous when anyone tries to defend the practice. Many of our guidelines and policies are extremely well written - "even brilliant" to quote our FA standards. The MOS has degenerated into a mess. There is constant edit warring there and constant personal attacks. This is unacceptable - and I am not one of those doing either. Discuss the content, not the contributor. Apteva (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to remind everyone of the first bubble in File:Consensus Flowchart.svg, which is "Previous consensus", not "Undecided". We do not use stare decisis, where once something is decided it is never revised. So bizarre as it may seem, yes it is correct that anyone anytime anywhere can make an edit and seek a new consensus. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages that is chiseled in stone. I like to point out that the WP:Five pillars has been edited over 1000 times. The names of each has not changed much, but they started out as:

• Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia
• Misplaced Pages writes articles from a neutral point-of-view
• Misplaced Pages is free-content
• Misplaced Pages follows the writers' rules of engagement
• Misplaced Pages doesn't have firm rules

and are now:

• Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.
• Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view.
• Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
• Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules.

Most of the edits were minor explanatory changes. The fourth one is the one that has been modified the most, but never to change the meaning - treat others as you would like others to treat you, basically. But here we go again, attacking the messenger, instead of focusing on the message. WP:FOC Apteva (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than just keep repeating all that as if we haven't already heard it, you might try addressing the other side's answer, which I believe is: they did discuss your issue; it was about September. They stopped discussing it when it became apparent you were just going to keep repeating yourself, disregarding the repeatedly demonstrated consensus against you. Whether that's right or wrong, that is their worldview. Nothing else you say (such as "Discuss the content" – yet again and again, or "anyone anytime anywhere can make an edit and seek a new consensus" – anytime except when the consensus against it has just been repeatedly demonstrated) will make sense to them without arguing from their own assumptions, not yours. Art LaPella (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So go to MOS and argue for the changes that you want. If you provide supporting evidence from the mountain of grammatical and typographical RS out there, then you might even get a hearing. However what you're doing at present is to edit war this same point in article space instead. That, just by itself, is disruptive. It's still disruptive even if you turn out to be right over the underlying point.

This isn't 1947 Palestine. You don't get to act as a terrorist today and then become a respected statesman tomorrow because government changes and you'd then be on the winning side of the great dash vs hyphen conflict. On WP, we just don't like disruption, even if it turns out to have been correct in the long run. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva has tried going to MOS and arguing for the changes. The proposal was rejected. Please don't tell Apteva to go back there again so soon after trying and failing. What we're trying to communicate to him or her is that his or her options are exhausted, at least in the short- and medium-terms. Powers 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now the discussion is at VPP. I will let someone else take it to MOS, if the VPP discussion recommends a change. This is not something that affects only me. Apteva (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, you have the choice to continue arguing this question via the MOS route, or to give it up as a situation where you lost the argument (these happen, so get over it). What you don't have as an option is to continue the same argument, but via articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:MOS#Three corrections. Fix those, and everyone is happy. MOS folks tend to think that they need to decide everything and put it into the MOS. That is not true. English is a very rich language and has many options. I agree that correcting the MOS is the most important thing to do, but actually even more important than that (did anyone catch that) is correcting articles that misapply the MOS. The MOS does not tell us to misspell things, and when it does, it is correctly ignored. Contrary to opinion, I am an extremely careful and responsible editor and do not do stupid or inappropriate things, any more than is inevitable for all of us. As such this RFC/U is stupid, inappropriate, and a waste of everyone's time. There is a right and a wrong way to do everything, and this is not it. Apteva (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you refuse to address the matter of this RFC and you drop back to parroting the same old complaint.

This RfC is not about the MOS. It's not about the dash/hyphen issue. It's about the separate issue that you keep dragging that issue into articles. We don't care about the rightness of your argument. We might possibly start to care if you stopped warring about it in articlespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is never inappropriate to correct errors or to bring them up. The correct place to discuss an article is on the talk page of that article. If it is a long standing practice to spell something wrong, it is never wrong to bring up the correct spelling. If it comes up too many times that is what subpages are for, to localize the discussion. The correct way to reach consensus is to discuss the issue, and not the person bringing it up/commenting. This is consensus building 101. But seriously does this sound like any way to improve an encyclopedia: "We don't care about the rightness of your argument." If that is the opinion of anyone, I would suggest finding another area to work on, and let those who do care work on those/these articles. There is a right and a wrong way to do things, and this RFC/U is not the right way. The right way would have been to participate in mediation to determine the correct answer. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

At least the word "never" is exaggerated, and sounds like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You do know you're accused of bringing this up too often (especially in article space), right? If it is a long standing practice to spell "cat" as "kat", it isn't wrong to bring up the correct spelling once, but "never"? 100 times? A googol times? At what point do we agree to spell it "kat" and get on with the rest of Misplaced Pages? Art LaPella (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that no matter how many times that editor brings up spelling cat as kat is appropriate if that is what they think is correct, and if they can support that suggestion. If it is taking up too much space, what we do is set up a subpage, with a link, for spelling cat as kat, see ] or ] and go back to editing. If they get a majority to support the change, an RM is opened and the page is/is not moved, based on the result. It is not a big deal. What is a big deal is to attack the editor bringing it up. That is not appropriate. Discuss the issue, not the proponent. WP tends not to prefer adding an RM constantly, but one now and then is appropriate to attract attention. For example, my current proposal is to have an RM once every six months on this particular issue. That to me can not be considered excessive. They only last a week, so no one is going to have to see it more than about 3.8% of the year. Calling the RM's disruptive and asking them to be speedy closed is absurd and inappropriate. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)