Hey man im josh (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::{{ping|Hey man im josh}} the page was moved to lowercase, without going the RM route. I presume that means you're going to revert? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 06:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|Hey man im josh}} the page was moved to lowercase, without going the RM route. I presume that means you're going to revert? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 06:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::You've read my question & haven't responded. I'll take that as a 'no'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
:::You've read my question & haven't responded. I'll take that as a 'no'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::@[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]: I wrote something very long winded up this morning and decided not to and figured I’d come back to respond to you. In short, no I will not be. I will be respecting the close even if I do not personally agree with it. I have a lot of thoughts on the discussion, which I think may be best summarized in point form, and I’ve noted some of them below in rough form. |
|||
::::* When I originally said this, I was set in the idea that it was the wrong venue, and I had no expectation of an admin closing the discussion. I said it with the expectation that it was going to be an inconclusive discussion that some people may try to use as reason to move the page without a proper discussion. |
|||
::::* Wordsmith has since evaluated whether it's an appropriate location for that discussion and has determined that it was. This is a belief that they weren’t alone in. |
|||
::::* Not to the extent that others did, but I think I also discouraged discussion with comments like this. I did not expect it to be an appropriate venue and obviously I was wrong. I’m not involved in a lot of RfCs and this is something I’ll be learning from. I feel partially responsible because of this. |
|||
::::* The validity of the discussion wasn’t established early on. There were a number of users who thought it was an inappropriate forum, which I parroted with the same belief. I think as a result some people didn’t participate or comment as much. |
|||
::::* I wish the articles for the drafts had been tagged, I probably would have done so if I knew that this RFC would be binding. |
|||
::::* I would have weighed things differently (obviously) and viewed it as no consensus, but that’s not a valid reason to request the close be overturned since Wordsmith established that the venue was appropriate. They did their best to weigh the arguments and made the close that they believe was right. As a result, and due to inconsistencies in press, this result will likely stick for a decade plus. |
|||
::::* Wikilawyering and bludgeoning the conversation to death was a significant reason why the discussion ended the way it did and I wish MOS discussions were better moderated to avoid these types of outcomes. “These type” being ones that are won by sheer number of comments and wearing people down. |
|||
::::* Based on signatures in this discussion, the top three commenters had 72, 63, and 57 comments. They all supported downcasing. |
|||
::::* NFL Draft is absolutely (and clearly) a proper name of an event (in relevant sports sources, aside from ESPN, who is looking into their style guide based on an email I sent) but bludgeoning and wikilawyering has prevailed, which is disheartening. |
|||
::::* Wikipedia defaults to downcasing when sourcing is inconsistent, but you’ll almost always be able to find enough sources to argue that capitalization is not appropriate when the word “draft” is involved. Especially when you pick sources that are not familiar with the subject. This is why I believe it’s more important and relevant to evaluate the capitalization used by national publications or websites focused on national coverage (as opposed to coverage of a specific team) of sports. |
|||
::::* There are inconsistencies in sources because most sources don't have a style guide they must adhere to, but that doesn't mean that downcasing is actually the proper result. |
|||
::::* It’s sometimes downcased in sources because sources themselves, which often consist of dozens of different writers, are not necessarily aware that it’s a proper name. This is a common problem for events, drafts particularly, that have self descriptive names which are also nouns. |
|||
::::* Inconsistency in sources doesn't mean that something’s not actually a proper name, despite what some are screaming from the rooftops. |
|||
::::* Many of the comments in the discussion were focused on the premise that a lack of consistency in sources means that something is not a proper name instead of considering that sources may not be aware (or even care). Discussion should have been focused on whether it’s a proper name, not just based on a tally of what irrelevant sources and publications use while using a couple instances of downcasing (mistakes) on relevant sources that overwhelmingly uppercase to Draft as a reason to discount said source. This is akin to [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], but due to inconsistencies, it’s defaulted to downcase. |
|||
::::* We shouldn’t use counting stats to determine what’s a proper name and doing so is silly. |
|||
::::* Some people refused to even consider the possibility of a proper name once the ngrams, which are notorious for lacking meaningful context, came out and showed an inconsistency (again, context is key). |
|||
::::* It felt as though the discussion had a lot of bad faith arguments and like some refused to consider the possibility that uppercasing may make sense, while I tried to approach with an open mind but ended up playing devil’s advocate because so many people had been pushed away. Several people reached out to me privately to say that the discussion was such a trainwreck and drama filled that they weren’t participating, so I felt like I had to. |
|||
::::* This discussion left me drained, discouraged, and considering a Wikibreak (over the capitalization of a single fucking letter). It brought me to a point I haven’t felt with Wikipedia and I had to leave the discussion. These discussions are why MOS is a ctop and why people don’t want to participate in MOS related discussions, it’s a genuine problem and not the first time I’ve seen it, but it was the worst I’ve felt from it. |
|||
::::* I’m not sure I ever want to deal with MOS again based on the interactions that are routinely allowed. |
|||
::::In summation, sometimes Wikipedia gets it wrong, this is just one of those times. The closure, however, was policy based and Wordsmith took the time to evaluate whether it was a proper venue or not. I know how hard that is to do and, absent a challenge and overturning of the close, which won’t be coming from me, I must accept that we’ll have it wrong for a while. I just don't have it in me to relitigate when the same argument about inconsistency is going to be used to ignore all other points made. The reality is there will always be inconsistencies, and that can be used to downcase pages that are proper names. I don't agree with it, I think it leads to us getting things wrong sometimes, but it's what we have as policy. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:30, 7 February 2024
NFL draft was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Title
Here is a very helpful link that shows proper grammar for this situation.
http://grammartips.homestead.com/caps.html
Or perhaps you can go to the 78 other individual draft pages and see how it is written there.
If you want to change this letter to a lowercase so badly, in keeping with consistency, you will have to go change all the individual draft pages as well. But that point is besides the fact as you are supposed to capitalize it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right that there are many more pages that should be fixed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). In Wikipedia, we use sentence case for title, not title case as is the style in some other publications. The article is already correctly titled -- just need to use the same sentence case in the opening sentence. Also notice that lowercase is overwhelmingly most common in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, in Wikipedia, we use title case for proper name titles, per WP:NCCAPS, which states that "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name", which this is. The NFL Draft is an official, NFL-designated, proper name title of a specific event, and thus should be capitalized. The NGRAM results being used to support lowercase are wholly flawed evidence, because it includes descriptive rather than titular mentions. For example, compare the NGRAM results for Space Shuttle, which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle", because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an "NFL draft" in the sense that it is a "draft sponsored by the NFL", in the same way that the "space shuttle" is a "shuttle used in space", but there is also an official "Space Shuttle", the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian (reply) 17:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the concept of "titular" has a role in WP styling issues. But let's look at what the n-grams show. On the Space Shuttle issue, n-grams show that most of the lowercase uses are for "space shuttle Challenger" and "space shuttle Columbia", in which "space shuttle" is treated as descriptive. Even NASA does that sometimes, e.g. here and here. In some of the other contexts, it's generic, too, as you say, but yes it's the proper name for NASA's Space Shuttle program. On the draft, caps are much less common in all contexts, as you can see here and here. Really no hint of treatment as a proper name in reliable sources independent of the NFL. And our articles are all about the draft process and results, not the "event" that they sold tickets to and/or put on TV. For 3 years we had it correctly at lowercase, and then a corrupt RM process was interpreted as a consensus to cap it. This needs to be revisited. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: If you believe the previous RM process was "corrupt", please feel free to start a new RM discussion. The closer at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July#2016 NFL Draft said "endorse closure but allow fresh RM". Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the concept of "titular" has a role in WP styling issues. But let's look at what the n-grams show. On the Space Shuttle issue, n-grams show that most of the lowercase uses are for "space shuttle Challenger" and "space shuttle Columbia", in which "space shuttle" is treated as descriptive. Even NASA does that sometimes, e.g. here and here. In some of the other contexts, it's generic, too, as you say, but yes it's the proper name for NASA's Space Shuttle program. On the draft, caps are much less common in all contexts, as you can see here and here. Really no hint of treatment as a proper name in reliable sources independent of the NFL. And our articles are all about the draft process and results, not the "event" that they sold tickets to and/or put on TV. For 3 years we had it correctly at lowercase, and then a corrupt RM process was interpreted as a consensus to cap it. This needs to be revisited. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, in Wikipedia, we use title case for proper name titles, per WP:NCCAPS, which states that "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name", which this is. The NFL Draft is an official, NFL-designated, proper name title of a specific event, and thus should be capitalized. The NGRAM results being used to support lowercase are wholly flawed evidence, because it includes descriptive rather than titular mentions. For example, compare the NGRAM results for Space Shuttle, which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle", because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an "NFL draft" in the sense that it is a "draft sponsored by the NFL", in the same way that the "space shuttle" is a "shuttle used in space", but there is also an official "Space Shuttle", the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian (reply) 17:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Definition of "proprietary"
In the "compensatory pick " section, it says:
"The placement of picks is determined by a proprietary formula ..."
That is not the proper use of this word. Something that is proprietary have been created by a particular person or organization, or could be owned by or licensed for use only by such a person. But it does not necessarily mean secret or confidential.
https://wikidiff.com/proprietary/confidential
https://www.stairstepconsulting.com/practical-proprietary-and-confidential-information-handling/
The league wants to keep the formula secret, probably so that different teams will not game the system. Any NFL employee who leaks it would probably get fired. But it's not the same as a trade secret, that someone might steal and sell to a competitor. The formula itself has no monetary value to any other organization.
I realize, this text comes from the NFL website itself. But there's no reason that Wikipedia has to participate in this bastardization of the language. Marzolian (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Text copied straight from NFL website
A lot of this page is taken straight from the NFL's own website, here:
https://operations.nfl.com/the-players/the-nfl-draft/the-rules-of-the-draft/
What is the point of copying it? Just summarize it here, and include a link to the NFL's site. Marzolian (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
an article for "List of penultimate NFL draft picks"
How about creating an article for "List of penultimate draft picks" to compliment the existing articles " list of first overall NFL draft picks" , "second overall picks " and "Mr. Irrelevant " ? Since the 2nd overall picks get their list, it'd make sense for the 2nd to last ones to get one, too. 2603:6000:8740:54B1:DD35:6940:24B1:219 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
RFC on title of capitalization of Draft
An RFC at VillagePump on whether "Draft" should be capitalized in NFL Draft articles, including this one, has been opened. Frank Anchor 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Many editors feel that this is an opinion survey, as actual name changes (even more so given the magnitude and scope of the moves seemingly being attempted to circumvent it) are requested and decided at WP:RM. Other editors think that this RfC might be used to change the article titles without doing an RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I want to be clear to those reading who may not want to chime in; I will revert the move(s) from "Draft" to "draft" until a proper RM takes place. This is not a non-controversial move and needs to follow the proper procedures in order to be downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: the page was moved to lowercase, without going the RM route. I presume that means you're going to revert? GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- You've read my question & haven't responded. I'll take that as a 'no'. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I wrote something very long winded up this morning and decided not to and figured I’d come back to respond to you. In short, no I will not be. I will be respecting the close even if I do not personally agree with it. I have a lot of thoughts on the discussion, which I think may be best summarized in point form, and I’ve noted some of them below in rough form.
- When I originally said this, I was set in the idea that it was the wrong venue, and I had no expectation of an admin closing the discussion. I said it with the expectation that it was going to be an inconclusive discussion that some people may try to use as reason to move the page without a proper discussion.
- Wordsmith has since evaluated whether it's an appropriate location for that discussion and has determined that it was. This is a belief that they weren’t alone in.
- Not to the extent that others did, but I think I also discouraged discussion with comments like this. I did not expect it to be an appropriate venue and obviously I was wrong. I’m not involved in a lot of RfCs and this is something I’ll be learning from. I feel partially responsible because of this.
- The validity of the discussion wasn’t established early on. There were a number of users who thought it was an inappropriate forum, which I parroted with the same belief. I think as a result some people didn’t participate or comment as much.
- I wish the articles for the drafts had been tagged, I probably would have done so if I knew that this RFC would be binding.
- I would have weighed things differently (obviously) and viewed it as no consensus, but that’s not a valid reason to request the close be overturned since Wordsmith established that the venue was appropriate. They did their best to weigh the arguments and made the close that they believe was right. As a result, and due to inconsistencies in press, this result will likely stick for a decade plus.
- Wikilawyering and bludgeoning the conversation to death was a significant reason why the discussion ended the way it did and I wish MOS discussions were better moderated to avoid these types of outcomes. “These type” being ones that are won by sheer number of comments and wearing people down.
- Based on signatures in this discussion, the top three commenters had 72, 63, and 57 comments. They all supported downcasing.
- NFL Draft is absolutely (and clearly) a proper name of an event (in relevant sports sources, aside from ESPN, who is looking into their style guide based on an email I sent) but bludgeoning and wikilawyering has prevailed, which is disheartening.
- Wikipedia defaults to downcasing when sourcing is inconsistent, but you’ll almost always be able to find enough sources to argue that capitalization is not appropriate when the word “draft” is involved. Especially when you pick sources that are not familiar with the subject. This is why I believe it’s more important and relevant to evaluate the capitalization used by national publications or websites focused on national coverage (as opposed to coverage of a specific team) of sports.
- There are inconsistencies in sources because most sources don't have a style guide they must adhere to, but that doesn't mean that downcasing is actually the proper result.
- It’s sometimes downcased in sources because sources themselves, which often consist of dozens of different writers, are not necessarily aware that it’s a proper name. This is a common problem for events, drafts particularly, that have self descriptive names which are also nouns.
- Inconsistency in sources doesn't mean that something’s not actually a proper name, despite what some are screaming from the rooftops.
- Many of the comments in the discussion were focused on the premise that a lack of consistency in sources means that something is not a proper name instead of considering that sources may not be aware (or even care). Discussion should have been focused on whether it’s a proper name, not just based on a tally of what irrelevant sources and publications use while using a couple instances of downcasing (mistakes) on relevant sources that overwhelmingly uppercase to Draft as a reason to discount said source. This is akin to WP:NOTAVOTE, but due to inconsistencies, it’s defaulted to downcase.
- We shouldn’t use counting stats to determine what’s a proper name and doing so is silly.
- Some people refused to even consider the possibility of a proper name once the ngrams, which are notorious for lacking meaningful context, came out and showed an inconsistency (again, context is key).
- It felt as though the discussion had a lot of bad faith arguments and like some refused to consider the possibility that uppercasing may make sense, while I tried to approach with an open mind but ended up playing devil’s advocate because so many people had been pushed away. Several people reached out to me privately to say that the discussion was such a trainwreck and drama filled that they weren’t participating, so I felt like I had to.
- This discussion left me drained, discouraged, and considering a Wikibreak (over the capitalization of a single fucking letter). It brought me to a point I haven’t felt with Wikipedia and I had to leave the discussion. These discussions are why MOS is a ctop and why people don’t want to participate in MOS related discussions, it’s a genuine problem and not the first time I’ve seen it, but it was the worst I’ve felt from it.
- I’m not sure I ever want to deal with MOS again based on the interactions that are routinely allowed.
- In summation, sometimes Wikipedia gets it wrong, this is just one of those times. The closure, however, was policy based and Wordsmith took the time to evaluate whether it was a proper venue or not. I know how hard that is to do and, absent a challenge and overturning of the close, which won’t be coming from me, I must accept that we’ll have it wrong for a while. I just don't have it in me to relitigate when the same argument about inconsistency is going to be used to ignore all other points made. The reality is there will always be inconsistencies, and that can be used to downcase pages that are proper names. I don't agree with it, I think it leads to us getting things wrong sometimes, but it's what we have as policy. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I wrote something very long winded up this morning and decided not to and figured I’d come back to respond to you. In short, no I will not be. I will be respecting the close even if I do not personally agree with it. I have a lot of thoughts on the discussion, which I think may be best summarized in point form, and I’ve noted some of them below in rough form.
- I want to be clear to those reading who may not want to chime in; I will revert the move(s) from "Draft" to "draft" until a proper RM takes place. This is not a non-controversial move and needs to follow the proper procedures in order to be downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)