Hosta

Wikipedia:WikiProject English

Wikipedia:WikiProject English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A project ostensibly created to "consolidate the efforts of all Wikipedians concerned about the proper naming of articles on the English Wikipedia", but in reality exists as a central gathering place for people of one side of the ongoing diacritics debates to coordinate efforts to force their WP:POV onto Wikipedia despite a distinct lack of overall consensus on the use of diacritics on this project. Another editor defined this project quite accurately by calling it "Wikiproject Canvass". Many of the comments on the various pages display something of a battleground mentality, and very much an "us vs. them" attitude that runs counter to Wikipedia's goal of being a collaborative project. Examples:

• From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_English#Thumbs up:
  • I have to congratulate everyone on our recent string of hockey player successes. The hockey/tennis player stuff seemed like such a lost cause just a couple weeks ago. For Ales Hemsky, the vote was 7-6 against removing the diacritics, but it was moved anyway, which certainly surprised me. I can boast of moving the Vietnamese bios and geography to non-diacritic titles -- It's hundreds of titles and took me several months to do. Kauffner (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like we've got a good team working on this, now we just have to a) get a few more members since it's hard to keep up and comment on more than a few talk pages (especially if you're as long winded as I am); and b) start being able to do some {{ multi-move }}s, but I take it the trick there is to get ones that have sufficiently similar arguments so that the expected demand, that each be argued separately, can be summarily dismissed. Who R you? Talk 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's mostly 'mother country pride' that's fueling the pro-diacritics push. I've lost count, as to how many times I've been slandered with the label xenophobic. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• From Wikipedia:WikiProject English/Articles:
  • "Move request away from COMMONNAME At last check: 6-Support 1-Oppose" - (Emphasis theirs), in regards to Talk:Andrej Gacina#Requested Move
  • "Multiple move request away from COMMONNAME At last check: 9-Support 6-Oppose move to non-English" (emphasis mine), in regards to Talk:Dominik Halmosi#Requested move
  • "This is one of the arguments used by the pro-diacritic crowd which they say proves that English uses diacritics; however, this is an Alternative Form rather than English." - (emphasis mine), on a planned move request for Café.

The opinion of project's creator, User:Who R you?, can be summed up by this comment: "Isn't it interesting how the English Wikipedians at en.WP establish policies about determining the English spelling of names and then follow them; unlike the small group of foreign editors who apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings?". (again, emphasis mine)

This project very clearly was not created as a good faith effort to aid collaboration at Wikipedia. It was created to win a war against the use of diacritics, and is targeted toward like minded individuals to that of Who R you?'s POV.

And before anyone asks, historically I have been supportive of the anti-diacritics opinion, but arguments made by various editors over time has pushed me toward a neutral position - I neither favour nor disfavour their use at this point.

In addition to the main project page, this nomination covers four subpages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject English/Members
• Wikipedia:WikiProject English/Articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject English/WPPolicy
• Wikipedia:WikiProject English/WPPolChg

Regards, Resolute 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add, the project creator and a supporter's comments regarding this project: User talk:Who R you?#WikiProject English. Just another sign that this is not a good faith project. Resolute 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was for the censorship of Freedom of Speech; I could have sworn that there was something somewhere about it being WP:NOTCENSORED; but, I guess maybe that only applies when showing sexually offensive pictures or morally objectionable materials, but collaboratively talking about what we think the problems are with Wikipedia, now censorship of that type of horrible free thought must be swiftly dealt with.  One has to wonder if this perhaps has anything to do with the fact that the long tide of anti-English article moves may be being interfered with by a group of (up until an hour ago) 5 people that recognize that Projects like WP:Hockey have been hijacked for the opposite purpose by others.  Perhaps Resolute is offended by our unwillingness to skulk around in the shadows like vermin; perhaps (s)he has a problem with conversations happening in the open, a problem with our unwillingness to be like vile repugnant scum and sneak around on IRC and email.  Well, to anyone that has a problem with my willingness to stand-up for what I believe in and my willingness to speak my mind; Fuck you!.  I think I mentioned already that the project should be kept. — Who R you? Talk 03:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for making my point for me. And thank you for putting your motivations for creating this project into this discussion, in your own words. You made my case far better than I could. Regards, Resolute 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is there a difference between discussing article titles at this location, as opposed to discussing them at WP:EN or WP:Hockey? Every project is for purpose of getting people with similar interests to collaborate. We already have WP:LIBERALISM, WP:Conservatism, and WP:Environment. That English should be used exclusively for article titles is policy, so this aspect of the project should not be considered as a "side" in some debate, or as a divisive position. Editors have opinions about stuff, they put these opinions on project's talk page, and so what? Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a very big difference between the projects you link to whose aim is to improve articles on those topics and a Wikiproject created specifically to violate WP:CANVASS and to make a WP:POINT. It is a huge violation of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars to create projects to push a POV and create a voting block. As for "That English should be used exclusively for article titles is policy" there is no policy that states that. The guideline of WP:UE actually gives a large number of examples of when this isn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion Existence of diacritics in the larger Wikiproject is already a contentious continuous area of circular discussion at WP:UE, where no consensus has at all emerged. In fact, there is deadlock as deadlocked can be. There is little need for this forum deliberately created to promote drama and division where harmony and collaboration ought to prevail. The creator of the project seems to think "foreign editors ... apparently just come here to get their kicks out of disrupting the en.wp and vandalizing our pages by moving them to foreign spellings". Among the bad faith comments he has made is this diatribe. The project's goals appear on the surface to be founded on policy adherence, and to "reduce the amount of unproductive time spent by all editors dealing with the constant rehashing of these issues". Yet the policy area is deadlocked as nobody can agree to a change; it seems a fairly transparent aim of the 'project English' to provide coordination to [divisively] continue to push for a change of policy to remove diacritics, whilst failing to do so in the short term seek to go after articles whose long-standing names are target for change. There also seems to be a scheme by at least one of the proponents to remove articles of people presumed notable in their own countries by our very own criteria but for the fact that their names are foreign. It just happens that most of these subjects have diacritics in their name. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. This rant really does say it all for the divisive bad faith motivations of the project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This encyclopedia has no place for single-issue voting blocs masquerading as wikiprojects, particularly ones who regard their opposition on that single issue "vile repugnant scum". FYI, I have no opinion whatsoever regarding diacritics. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and this proves beyond any doubt that is is just a little POV-pushing club. Reyk _YO! 04:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huge violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and a detriment to trying to work together in a collaborative environment to solve issues. This is clearly an attempt to get around WP:CANVASS and as Reyk mentions its quite obviously a voting block masquerading as a wikiproject. -DJSasso (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The irony in this when this project is being put up for deletion because of canvass issues is unbelievable. -DJSasso (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It might've been seen as canvassing. But, there was really no call for favoring either side. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, personally I don't see a problem with promoting the usage of english on this Wikipedia & promoting the english sources, too. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the OP makes a perfect point that this is indeed one sided, against many Wikipedia policies. Keeping this will only instill more drama than already exists, and I get a feeling of bad faith from the creator. (Also, don't WikiProjects have to go through an approval process? Did this one pass somehow?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a bad-faith creation and an attempt to circumvent normal dispute resolution processes. From the name, it appeared to me at first to be a WikiProject used to work on articles about the English language, like grammar and stuff like that; however reading through the project pages this is clearly and blatantly an attempt to coordinate efforts to WP:GAME the normal dispute resolution processes. No statement on the whole diacritics debate per se but the behavior of the people who created this thing is highly questionable. --Jayron32 05:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blatant bad faith canvassing violating almost any policy you care to mention. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As literally written, the project's purpose identifies it as a group interested in enforcing Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with this (though it may be a bit ambitious for one group to try to build expertise in all article title matters, and a name such as "WikiProject Article Titles" would fit better), with the tenor of the current discussion (as quoted above), it is on the cusp of becoming yet another page to host the repeated assertions of those interested in discussing how diacritics should be used. And although that's fine too if that's what editors want, I suggest there are sufficient existing venues to discuss this topic, and other topics related to article titles. isaacl (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While apparently worded neutrally, the evidence is pretty clear that this "Project" is designed to be pointy and push a specific non-policy, non-consensus, POV. It is against the collaborative spirit of Wikiprojects, and of Wikipedia in general. (I have no position on the diacritics issue, other than that it needs to be resolved in a spirit of cooperation and respect, and not as an "English speakers vs foreigners" battle) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am generally on the "anti-diacritic" side of the fence (though I don't believe the issue is so black-and-white) and I agree with those above that such a one-sided project does nothing constructive for the encyclopedia and only serves to make diacritics discussions worse. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I regularly notify national wikiprojects (mainly WP:CZECH) about relevant AfDs or RMs. I realized it could be problematic after the Swedish enclave arrived to the Diacritics RfC. However, the national projects work on a different basis than this WikiProject English. They are open to various opinions and nobody says that when you are Czech you must !vote in accordance with some 'national interest'. However, I can imagine that my notifying could be, under certain circumstances, considered as WP:CANVASSING. On the other hand, the creator of this project suggests to ignore 'pro-dios' editors who might join the membership in the project, which speaks for itself. There's nothing open and collaborative on this project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Isn't it better that people trying to push this convention do so openly in project-space, where it is open to scrutiny and discussion? We have groups like the Article Rescue Squad, which clearly attracts a group of editors with a certain, non-consensus view of the deletion policy, but have decided that it's better to allow them to organize where there is a formal process and oversight. This is similar. Buddy431 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No desire to harass at all, but I must offer a word of defense for the Article Rescue Squadron. In my experience, I'd say their aim is not to act independently of deletion consensus or advocate any view in a "non-consensus" way, but to improve articles so that the consensus would be to keep them - I see that as working *for* consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it was created in bad faith, not to support wikipedia decision-making but to get around the irksome problem that there are many people who disagree with the founder's interpretation of policy - apparently the only way to get around that problem is to avoid the existing debate on the policy page, and to set up a new page to canvas like-minded people to participate directly at RMs &c. As the nominator suggests, this "wikiproject" can only deepen the us-versus-them mindset, and drive us further from consensus. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Every Wikiproject should be open to every editor and every editor should feel welcome in every project. This one however would make me uncomfortably to join as I would not feel welcome as a contributor, as I'm racialy and linguistically different. It would create a divide, a them and us which is not what Wikipedia is about. I think, the project is born out of frustration over the direction the hockey project is taking in regards to naming conventions rather then a true wish to have such a project. I don't think, this move would solve the problem there! Calistemon (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I agree that, as construed, I would not want to join this project. As it is construed presently, I do not support its continuation. I do, however feel that we have a group of non-English contributors who are also voting in a block. Rightly or wrongly, I think that concerns me, and we need some balance. I therefore must agree with some respects of the free speech defence. I'd rather it be out in the open. I'd like to see this project re-purposed. We need to be concerned about usability, openness and standards in the area of English usage, translation, transliteration and the like. If it were a group that includes those interested in the usage of English on Wikipedia, and determining a reasonable course between the contradictory/competing policies of spelling foreign-originated names on Wikipedia, I would support that. We are missing something here on Wikipedia, as it has become two camps. Not healthy. A re-purposed project, well, I think it could include those in the project presently, and even those who disagree mostly, if it were thus re-purposed. Listing articles for which requested moves are ongoing is useful, especially in the current environment. The endless debates on use English, etc. are interminable. I'd appreciate a group that can focus the discussion at one place. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to a project or page where the voting as a block by non-English editors is being co-ordinated? Having the same opinions is completely different than voting as a block and canvassing votes which is what this group is doing and I have seen no evidence that the opposite is happening anywhere. The centralized place to have these discussion are on the policy pages themselves. Creating yet another place to have these discussions only makes the situation even more fragmented. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been canvassing by non-English editors, you know that. I'm not as ticked off as you, that's all. Not sure whether to leave it in the open or not? There may be some benefit by by having it be in the open, where it can be discussed. But, does it start a bad precedent? I'm not sure. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion as part of a bid to resolve the issue belongs at either the relevant policy page or on the Village Pump. A project, coordinated by a user (ultimately a group of users), who display a very strong negative reaction to those who do not share said view will be unlikely to feel welcomed. Resolute 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but we seem to be ping-ponging at the moment, between diacritics and use english, are we not? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

• Which block of voters do you have in mind, alaney2k? Personally, I'm English, so I'm a little surprised to see my !vote being written off as a mere foreigner; that tactic has sadly been used among the anti-diacritical rants on article talkpages but we shouldn't let it spread to XfDs too. I do respect the intention to bridge the divide between the two camps, but I feel this wikiproject is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Probably was a mischaracterization on my part. I've seen canvassing and I should not extrapolate. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would support the WP:MOS in following English language sources (and therefore generally avoiding diacritics). But a "Project" like this with a misleading title and a single, partisan aim is not the right way to go about it. Moreover the behaviour of some of the project's members is troubling - not in itself a reason for deletion, of course, but not indicative of a net gain to the encyclopedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]