M
Mandruss
Guest
Firearm brands and models in articles about mass shooting events: ce
[td]::::::::I think that Wikipedia editors are meant to provide an encyclopedic summary, which does not necessarily include providing exact details for some things. That is, I believe we should say that the murder weapon was a sword (because it was a sword, not a spear), but not provide a detailed description of the murder weapon. Leave out the trivia; just say "three firearms" or "a handgun" or "an [[AR-15βstyle rifle]]". Don't say "Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport III with laser sight, adjustable stock, and free-float handguard in black" β unless the sources indicate that there is something specific about one of those details that actually matters. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]*This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, in a way that fundamentally comes down to "I don't like it." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">β</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, in a way that fundamentally comes down to "I don't like it." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">β</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]{{cot|{{small|My meta comment. Ok to continue within if meta makes you sexually aroused. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 01:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)}}}}[/td]
[td]{{cot|{{small|My meta comment. Ok to continue within if meta makes you sexually aroused. {{small|Call me!}} ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 01:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)}}}}[/td] [td]*:Not at all. The problem is a widespread practice that (many editors believe) does not serve the encyclopedia or its readers—a perfectly fine use for this page and/or [[WP:VPR]]. Now I'll use this opportunity to hold forth (again). Outside of my user space, places like this are the only places I'm allowed to write essays, these days. {{small|(Inside joke between me and myself.)}}{{pb}}I've spent considerable time at many of these articles and I'm quite confident that most of the editors adding this kind of information are firearms aficionados who are not in good positions to evaluate its value to the reader community. They assume, quite incorrectly, that readers will be interested because they are. Local consensus is a great thing, over all, but it hardly makes sense when the content is justified in perhaps 5% of affected articles. And the average local group very often makes decisions counter to the interest of the overall encyclopedia, sorry. Local consensus is not compatible with site-wide consistency, which is sometimes a worthy goal. The two can coexist as well as fire and water can {{small|(they can't coexist at all, for those playing at home)}}.{{pb}}In my view, en-wiki's editing community needs to get down off the fence and take a position, one way or the other. How much do we care about site-wide consistency, when all is said and done? Where is the correct balance? We need to be on the same page with this, at least a strong majority of us. We need to form a community consensus on this meta issue, and then for God's sake write it down, concisely and coherently, and make that easily accessible to ordinary editors (sounds like a [[WP:WIKICONSIST]] ''policy'' to me).{{pb}}All guidelines allow for well-reasoned rare exceptions by definition of the word "guideline" (and [[WP:IAR]]). If tens of thousands of editors don't understand this, I say we should get started educating them, not try to accommodate them in defensive mode. Take more community control of the damn thing, for the betterment of English Wikipedia and the furtherance of world peace. {{small|(Strangely, our friend [[Donald Trump]] concurs, with three smiley emojis, two thumbs up, one userbox, one barnstar, and, of course, a partridge in a pear tree. "Stop farting around and ''do something!!!!!!''", he wrote. "And charge it to 'world peace', or something. Americans eat that stuff up! Idk about those foringers you got hangin around there. Buy more shovels and covfefe!" Now I'll be up all night.)}}{{pb}}This does not come down to IDLI, as evidenced by this large discussion teeming with arguments for and against the proposal. If one has no position one way or the other, there's no need to comment. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 23:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*:Not at all. The problem is a widespread practice that (many editors believe) does not serve the encyclopedia or its readers—a perfectly fine use for this page and/or [[WP:VPR]]. Now I'll use this opportunity to hold forth (again). Outside of my user space, places like this are the only places I'm allowed to write essays, these days. {{small|(Inside joke between me and myself.)}}{{pb}}I've spent considerable time at many of these articles and I'm quite confident that most of the editors adding this kind of information are firearms aficionados who are not in good positions to evaluate its value to the reader community. They assume, quite incorrectly, that readers will be interested because they are. Local consensus is a great thing, over all, but it hardly makes sense when the content is justified in perhaps 5% of affected articles. And the average local group very often makes decisions counter to the interest of the overall encyclopedia, sorry. Local consensus is not compatible with site-wide consistency, which is sometimes a worthy goal. The two can coexist as well as fire and water can {{small|(they can't coexist at all, for those playing at home)}}.{{pb}}In my view, en-wiki's editing community needs to get down off the fence and take a position, one way or the other. How much do we care about site-wide consistency, when all is said and done? Where is the correct balance? We need to be on the same page with this, at least a strong majority of us. We need to form a community consensus on this meta issue, and then for God's sake write it down, concisely and coherently, and make that easily accessible to ordinary editors (sounds like a [[WP:WIKICONSIST]] ''policy'' to me).{{pb}}All guidelines allow for well-reasoned rare exceptions by definition of the word "guideline" (and [[WP:IAR]]). If tens of thousands of editors don't understand this, I say we should get started educating them, not try to accommodate them in defensive mode. Take more community control of the damn thing, for the betterment of English Wikipedia and the furtherance of world peace. {{small|(Strangely, our friend [[Donald Trump]] concurs, with three smiley emojis, two thumbs up, one userbox, one barnstar, and, of course, a partridge in a pear tree. "Stop farting around and ''do something!!!!!!''", he wrote. "And charge it to 'world peace', or something. Americans eat that stuff up! Idk about those foringers you got hangin around there. Buy more shovels and covfefe!" Now I'll be up all night.)}}{{pb}}This does not come down to IDLI, as evidenced by this large discussion teeming with arguments for and against the proposal. If one has no position one way or the other, there's no need to comment. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 23:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]{{cob}}[/td]
[td]{{cob}}[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 966: | Line 966: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]::::::::I think that Wikipedia editors are meant to provide an encyclopedic summary, which does not necessarily include providing exact details for some things. That is, I believe we should say that the murder weapon was a sword (because it was a sword, not a spear), but not provide a detailed description of the murder weapon. Leave out the trivia; just say "three firearms" or "a handgun" or "an [[AR-15βstyle rifle]]". Don't say "Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport III with laser sight, adjustable stock, and free-float handguard in black" β unless the sources indicate that there is something specific about one of those details that actually matters. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]Revision as of 03:39, 5 September 2025
[/td][td]::::::::I think that Wikipedia editors are meant to provide an encyclopedic summary, which does not necessarily include providing exact details for some things. That is, I believe we should say that the murder weapon was a sword (because it was a sword, not a spear), but not provide a detailed description of the murder weapon. Leave out the trivia; just say "three firearms" or "a handgun" or "an [[AR-15βstyle rifle]]". Don't say "Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport III with laser sight, adjustable stock, and free-float handguard in black" β unless the sources indicate that there is something specific about one of those details that actually matters. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]*This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, in a way that fundamentally comes down to "I don't like it." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">β</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, in a way that fundamentally comes down to "I don't like it." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">β</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]{{cot|{{small|My meta comment. Ok to continue within if meta makes you sexually aroused. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 01:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)}}}}[/td]
[td]{{cot|{{small|My meta comment. Ok to continue within if meta makes you sexually aroused. {{small|Call me!}} ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 01:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)}}}}[/td] [td]*:Not at all. The problem is a widespread practice that (many editors believe) does not serve the encyclopedia or its readers—a perfectly fine use for this page and/or [[WP:VPR]]. Now I'll use this opportunity to hold forth (again). Outside of my user space, places like this are the only places I'm allowed to write essays, these days. {{small|(Inside joke between me and myself.)}}{{pb}}I've spent considerable time at many of these articles and I'm quite confident that most of the editors adding this kind of information are firearms aficionados who are not in good positions to evaluate its value to the reader community. They assume, quite incorrectly, that readers will be interested because they are. Local consensus is a great thing, over all, but it hardly makes sense when the content is justified in perhaps 5% of affected articles. And the average local group very often makes decisions counter to the interest of the overall encyclopedia, sorry. Local consensus is not compatible with site-wide consistency, which is sometimes a worthy goal. The two can coexist as well as fire and water can {{small|(they can't coexist at all, for those playing at home)}}.{{pb}}In my view, en-wiki's editing community needs to get down off the fence and take a position, one way or the other. How much do we care about site-wide consistency, when all is said and done? Where is the correct balance? We need to be on the same page with this, at least a strong majority of us. We need to form a community consensus on this meta issue, and then for God's sake write it down, concisely and coherently, and make that easily accessible to ordinary editors (sounds like a [[WP:WIKICONSIST]] ''policy'' to me).{{pb}}All guidelines allow for well-reasoned rare exceptions by definition of the word "guideline" (and [[WP:IAR]]). If tens of thousands of editors don't understand this, I say we should get started educating them, not try to accommodate them in defensive mode. Take more community control of the damn thing, for the betterment of English Wikipedia and the furtherance of world peace. {{small|(Strangely, our friend [[Donald Trump]] concurs, with three smiley emojis, two thumbs up, one userbox, one barnstar, and, of course, a partridge in a pear tree. "Stop farting around and ''do something!!!!!!''", he wrote. "And charge it to 'world peace', or something. Americans eat that stuff up! Idk about those foringers you got hangin around there. Buy more shovels and covfefe!" Now I'll be up all night.)}}{{pb}}This does not come down to IDLI, as evidenced by this large discussion teeming with arguments for and against the proposal. If one has no position one way or the other, there's no need to comment. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 23:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]*:Not at all. The problem is a widespread practice that (many editors believe) does not serve the encyclopedia or its readers—a perfectly fine use for this page and/or [[WP:VPR]]. Now I'll use this opportunity to hold forth (again). Outside of my user space, places like this are the only places I'm allowed to write essays, these days. {{small|(Inside joke between me and myself.)}}{{pb}}I've spent considerable time at many of these articles and I'm quite confident that most of the editors adding this kind of information are firearms aficionados who are not in good positions to evaluate its value to the reader community. They assume, quite incorrectly, that readers will be interested because they are. Local consensus is a great thing, over all, but it hardly makes sense when the content is justified in perhaps 5% of affected articles. And the average local group very often makes decisions counter to the interest of the overall encyclopedia, sorry. Local consensus is not compatible with site-wide consistency, which is sometimes a worthy goal. The two can coexist as well as fire and water can {{small|(they can't coexist at all, for those playing at home)}}.{{pb}}In my view, en-wiki's editing community needs to get down off the fence and take a position, one way or the other. How much do we care about site-wide consistency, when all is said and done? Where is the correct balance? We need to be on the same page with this, at least a strong majority of us. We need to form a community consensus on this meta issue, and then for God's sake write it down, concisely and coherently, and make that easily accessible to ordinary editors (sounds like a [[WP:WIKICONSIST]] ''policy'' to me).{{pb}}All guidelines allow for well-reasoned rare exceptions by definition of the word "guideline" (and [[WP:IAR]]). If tens of thousands of editors don't understand this, I say we should get started educating them, not try to accommodate them in defensive mode. Take more community control of the damn thing, for the betterment of English Wikipedia and the furtherance of world peace. {{small|(Strangely, our friend [[Donald Trump]] concurs, with three smiley emojis, two thumbs up, one userbox, one barnstar, and, of course, a partridge in a pear tree. "Stop farting around and ''do something!!!!!!''", he wrote. "And charge it to 'world peace', or something. Americans eat that stuff up! Idk about those foringers you got hangin around there. Buy more shovels and covfefe!" Now I'll be up all night.)}}{{pb}}This does not come down to IDLI, as evidenced by this large discussion teeming with arguments for and against the proposal. If one has no position one way or the other, there's no need to comment. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775c57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] IMO. 23:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]{{cob}}[/td]
[td]{{cob}}[/td]
Continue reading...
