Wikipedia talk:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding a translation section makes the page too long and reduces the impact. Leaving in the wonderful ABBized version makes it too unreadable and reduces the impact too. ARGH! Choices choices, what to do? Kim Bruning 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Works fine! - David Gerard 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is great because it demonstrates the extremes which reinforces the need for a balance. -- Tony 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I have but one response to this...

LOL!!! B-) Slambo (Speak) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Er, yes.

I shall attempt to cut down the jargon. Well, sometimes. - David Gerard 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page might be funny, but that is not the primary intent

I shan't revert off the accursed humor tag, else I'll even get 3RRed on the sodden mess. Pages need not be categorised if none apply. It's just a straightforward request to people to stay sane. Do we have a category "pages appealing to sanity" yet? Is it no longer permitted to be FUNNY when writing sane guidelines? :-P Could you leave off the darn tag? Sheesh!

Kim Bruning 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could put it in Wikipedia Essays? Or try and make it a guideline? (Though that has the stigma of being something that's "enforced" when I think this is really just a suggestion/request). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we just for once, like, drop the stupid cats and boxes? Why do you need to put every page in some ill-fitting box? :-P Kim Bruning 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Because nobody will find it unless it's by accident? :P At least if it's categorized people will come across it all on their own. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Trust me. People will find it :-) Kim Bruning 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason not to categorise it, in any of the above. if you'd like to cite this discussion when reverting, it'd help if there was something to read. ;) If you feel that none of the other categories fit, there's no harm in creating a new category (or an oxymoronic uncategorised category until we find a place for it). This is either humour or an essay, in my opinion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL!

This is my new favorite project namespace page. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But...

"BEANS", "BALLS", and "FU" aren't three letters long at all! æle ✆ 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but they are Extended Three Letter Acronyms. --cesarb 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
ARGH! — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What about "FU"? That's two letters. æle ✆ 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Extension by Truncation. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously a Reduced TLA ☺. --cesarb 16:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought the page said FUC, not FU... Dr Santa talk 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed since. æ² ✆ 2007‑01‑11t14:04z

[edit] I suggest we create a "longcut"...

... at Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!~!@!~1`2 æle ✆ 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A longcut? heh — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Too redundant. See diff. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How-to

I'd like to add a guideline tag, or would this spoil it? -- Omniplex 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Made it an old-style descriptive guideline :-) Kim Bruning 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] great

This is hilarious.

And very sensible.

Especially for article talk pages. Wierd shortcuts (even worse when people don't link them, using things like "AGF" as if they're normal words) makes it hard for new people to understand.

not that i haven't been guilty of it myself

but this is good. Cookies to whoever wrote this. --`/aksha 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emoticon

Can we just decide whether we want an emoticon at the end of "Moral of the story" or not? I think we should have it: the page is an essay, not an article. Just trying to avoid any future RVs. ;-) Dr Santa talk 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked emoticons, smileys, etc., so I had been waiting for a time when I saw one on Wikipedia in an article so that I could remove it. I understand the seriousness of Wikipedia, but at the same time, I love the idea of being able to edit out some of my pet peeves (such as the word "utilize" when "use" will do) and make grammar, punctuation, and spelling corrections. RSLitman 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy

My edit to add a "see also" link to Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy was reverted on the grounds that it was a 'link to a fairly bad essay'. Does anyone think a link to the essay is objectionable, as I think it's quite a useful essay that shares some of the same principles as this one. --Barberio 08:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, "don't cite essays" does say not to cite it. How's that for a paradox? Anyway, it is pretty much unrelated to this one. This page says "try t. avd. abbrv. snc. it's confus." DCEPITWP alleges that you should read a deeper meaning into simple citations, and concludes that therefore simple citations should be avoided. >Radiant< 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A 'see also' is not a citation to it. And it raises a similar issue of citing things in a confusing way. Of course it's not the same issue as this one, if it were it wouldn't be a separate page. (Incidentally, can you please not use bullet point *'s to indent your discussion page comments, it confuses the formatting and clashes when people use bullet points for actual lists.) --Barberio 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but you are welcome to try and create a policy against using bullets for conversation indenting. The difference is that WOTTA refers to things that are confusing because they're unclear, and DCEP refers to things that are confusing because some editors make unfounded incorrect assumptions based on inferral of what people didn't actually say. In other words the "error" lies on the other side. >Radiant< 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So? There is still the similar issue of not making references that may be confusing to the person reading it. And yes, it actually is unclear to a new editor that not all pages in the Wikipedia namespace are "official" policy. --Barberio 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's why policies have a big "this is policy" tag on top. >Radiant< 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, this does not allay what is an easy to make assumption by new editors that the wikipedia name space is all "official policy". --Barberio 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but neither does your essay. >Radiant< 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't intend to. It warns editors that such an assumption exists, and they should moderate their own behaviours because of it. --Barberio 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the error you're making is that you expect everybody to change their behavior because some novice editors make a false assumption. We're an encyclopedia; we should be educating the ignorant, not accomodating their ignorance. >Radiant< 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is however constantly getting new editors day after day, saying we should expect them all to be instantly 'educated' in all our 'ways' is folly. The change requested is minor, and does not make an editors task any harder. It does however lessen a significant problem for new editors.
Wikipedia must not become a clique where we only accept editors who 'know our ways', and exclude those otherwise good editors who don't by being obscure, jargonistic and referring to our built up layers of bureaucracy. --Barberio 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, what? Please do point out those layers of bureaucracy so that I can get some practice with my flamethrower. As I said, we do not require people to "know our ways" to edit, and hence "our ways" are rather vaguely defined at best. My point is still that you can't expect everybody to change their behavior because you allege it confuses some people. It may be well-intended and it may be good if people would, but because of human nature it's Not Going To Happen. Perhaps instead you could edit some of our {{welcome}}ing templates to help educating novice users faster. >Radiant< 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's you right to hold the view that editors shouldn't self moderate to avoid confusion. But that seems to conflict with the message of both of these essays. So I'm going to restore the link, since they share a common vein of self-moderation to avoid confusion.
As to wikipedia bureaucracy... In Category:Wikipedia_essays we have 332 essays claiming to tell us the ways of wikipedia. And that's not counting the pages that are incorrectly marked as help or how-to, which should be marked as essays or proposed guidelines. Are you offering to start helping culling these kinds of things? --Barberio 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're entirely missing my point. I'm not saying that people shouldn't, I'm saying that people are not going to do that simply because you want them to.
  • What do you mean by culling? If you mean deprecating "help" or "how-to" because you don't appear to understand the difference between that and essay, then no. If you mean deleting essays, well, I personally wouldn't mind seeing some of them gone but they'd have to go thru WP:MFD which will probably disagree with me on that. If otherwise, please tell me what you mean. The problem (that Wikispace is convoluted) is a direct result of design (that everybody can edit it). >Radiant< 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Radiant: You could always delete Articles for deletion? ;-) --Kim Bruning Note: this message complies with the suggestion to expand abbreviations. ;-)

Radiant, you reverted the link away again, but still haven't clearly made an argument why the essay shouldn't be linked to. Would you please explain why the essay, which has a similar theme to this one, should not be linked to? (Beyond your disagreement with what the essay says.) --Barberio 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal?

The page has an {{essay}} tag to tell people it's just an essay, it doesn't need a "Rebutal" section saying it's just an essay. --Barberio 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I disagree with the essay. I edited the essay ...in a funny(???) way... to reflect the fact that some wikipedians (viz., me) disagree with the idea that using WP:TLA is inappropriate. If you don't want your WP:essay to be edited mercilessly(per WP:OWN), put it on your WP:UP. LOL!!! Peace, MPS 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The rebuttal seems extraneous to me. æ² ✆ 2007‑01‑25t04:18z
I've expanded the rebuttal to explain that it is, of course, individual freedom to be unclear and confusing. --Barberio 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't quite understand your reasoning, so I've removed the section. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal from efficiency

Explicitly states that use of Three Letter Acronyms makes for a great shibboleth. Um, wikipedia has a large throughput, with new editors joining and old editors leaving all the time. We need to be welcoming to newcomers. Wouldn't use of shibboleths be anathema in that kind of situation?

Hmm, note that nowhere does WOTTA say to not use TLAs in edit summaries or when they're handy. Just well... maybe not while you're discussing stuff in places where you can expect (new) folks to look first. :-)

In fact you can even use TLAs on talk pages, just make the first usage in english and link, and after that just use the TLA to save your poor aching wrists.

(But putting all that in the article just bloats it and reduces the impact, of course. ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted, and I just restored. (1) Rebuttal does not say anything about shibbloths; I never put anything in about shibboleths. (2) WOTTA implies that TLAs are evil and frustrating; rebuttal says yes sometimes, but not alwasy. In many cases, it is due to user inexperience. (3) bloat? not sure what you are talking about. MPS 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"it is due to user inexperience". Well, if a practice distinguishes between two different groups (such as inexperienced versus experienced), that's a textbook example of a shibboleth.
WOTTA states that Three Letter Acronyms are fine when talking with the computer. Just not when talking with people. So no, TLAs are not evil nor frustrating. They have good uses, but you shouldn't overdo it.
Bloat? Do you mean like instruction-creep? Or making the page longer? If you read carefully, isn't the new section actually already contained in what was said above it? If not, it's probably pretty close. What's missing? --Kim Bruning 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WOTTA states "it's probably a bad idea to make a point of using these three letter acronyms in daily conversation" and "Always use a proper name for a Wikipedia namespace page when discussing it" ... this is a blanket condemnation of TLAs. There is nothing in WOTTA (outside of the rebuttal) that admits that WP:TLAs are useful within wikipedia. BTW, why have you been using "WOTTA" instead of Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!??? Did you maybe think that the context would be obvious??? hmm... maybe you should think about that for a second... ; ) MPS 15:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If I were to make a humor-free guideline, I'd state that the first instance of use in a post should be fully expanded, and further instances can be abbreviated. Second rule I use is that it is ok to use the abbreviation for the (talk of the) page you are actually posting on, since it has been adequately defined locally. The meta rule is to always ensure that there is at least one (and only one possible) full expansion which is obvious-in-context, for each Three Letter Acronym applied.
But that's much harder to write and explain than WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, putting the TLA in double brackets makes the context available at the click of a mouse... Thus the super-rule is always fulfilled for all "wikilinked" TLA. my humor free guideline would be that as long as you wikilink your TLA and as long as you only have one or two USEFUL TLA per sentence you should be ok. MPS 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Everyone else will have to open up several tabs, when simple expansion on your side saves everyone the trouble. Which is more polite? :-) --Kim Bruning 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Though I agree that wikilnking is at least a good start, and a minimal requirement. Some people don't do even that, leaving everyone confused.

[edit] What the rebuttal and it's target are missing

TEXT OF ORIGINAL POST IS REFORMATTED FOR READABILITY

I would like to propose (and if accepted for exploration/development author an initial-draft outline), as we called in college debate, a Cross-Bench Critique. Basically why both sides are wrong, both sides are right and what is missing to "crystalize" the jist. Three Letter Acronyms are abused both ways...being underlinked for the benefit edit-vets wrists, while being overlinked for the benefit of newbies and those who haven't memorized all 5,384,892 TLA's for policies, essays, guidelines, templates, articles for administrative purposes or procedures, and even for articles that are not even any of the aforementioned (like TLA). These are generally used to refer the target reader(s) to some PEGTAP to point out why "I'm more right", "You're more wrong", "Shame on you for violating this" or some other delineation of arguement fortification. Generally these are offered in pretty gift-wrapping like this.
  • NewbieNed, about your edit, it is WP:OR. -- OldieOle 15:22, 8 March 2008.
Now NewbieNed is expected to (1) go to WP:OR to find out what the heck the state of OR has to do with their ongoing conversation, (2) Realize that WP:OR is different from OR, (3) Figure out what the heck OldieOle was invoking the memory of WP:OR for? Does OldieOle think the edit violates OR? But OR actually is titled "No original research", so does OldieOle think the edit might be misconstrued as violating OR but actually is "no[t] original research"? Or is OldieOle saying the edit could be a violation of OR but may acceptable based on the exclusions listed (outline #1 on WP:OR)? What the heck did OldieOle mean? In discussions that are, er, passionate, these TLA are thrown around at a more furious rate. I am aware of WP:AGF (for those of you scoring at home that TLA is Assume good faith), but, c'mon, this next statement is a reality just because of human nature. These TLA in heated discussions or on controversial topics are more passive-aggressive or antagonistic than informative. As a result there is more ambiguity in the applicability of the TLA.
  • OldieOle, why did you revert my edit back to SillySam's edit? -- NewbieNed 13:18, 31 February 2009.
    • NewbieNed, see WP:OR. I rv again to SillySam. Please discuss before editing further. -- OldieOle 13:19, 31 February 2009.
What? See it? Why? What part of WP:OR did OldieOle feel applied? Without this knowledge how can NewbieNed address or resolve the concerns? The conversation continues in a growing test of will. (And this thread is all too common within controversial topics and their talk pages.)
  • Reverted SillySam's edit. Consensus at this point is to have the word "Doh" included. -- NewbieNed 13:15, 31 February 2009.

  • OldieOle, why did you revert my edit back to SillySam's edit? -- NewbieNed 13:18, 31 February 2009.
    • NewbieNed, see WP:OR. I rv again to SillySam. Please discuss before editing further. -- OldieOle 13:19, 31 February 2009.
      • OldieOle, how is my edit WP:OR? I mean, the word "Doh" is not a Neologisms and that is what we have been discussing. I put the text back as the consensus is that it should be included. --Newbie Ned 13:20, 31 February 2009.
        • Blocked NewbieNed for WP:3RR. NewbieNed, see OR Sources. The issue is with your source. The OED is not a reliable source. -- OldieOle 13:22, 31 February 2009.

And you can guess the back-and-forth later about the 3RR.

So the "stop the Three Letter Acronyms barrage" philosophy would not have helped prevent this. Nor would the "link the TLA" philosophy. What would have helped prevent this flame complete with a fuel drip? Better use of TLA.

Briefly (or maybe even a little more than briefly) quote why the TLA is being brought up. Let's reconstruct the above discussion a bit.

  • Reverted SillySam's edit. Consensus at this point is to have the word "Doh" included. -- NewbieNed 13:15, 31 February 2009.

  • OldieOle, why did you revert my edit back to SillySam's edit? -- NewbieNed 13:18, 31 February 2009.
    • NewbieNed, see WP:OR, "material for which no reliable source can be found and which is...believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." I rv again to SillySam. Please provide a reliable primary source if you reinsert the text. -- OldieOle 13:19, 31 February 2009.

OK, yes there are some other possible issues already to that point...but a constructive dialogue is able to ensue, issues can be addressed productively, concerns voiced. Most importantly an edit-war and a flame session are both avoided and a consensus without alienating people (either the warriors or bystanders). Community is maintained for another day, democracy rules, good triumphs over evil. And everyone gets a Toblerone.

Thoughts, comments, advice or feedback? -- Tony 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Short version: "Speak English, darnit!" ;-) (But there's no fun sequence of pre-existing TLA to say that ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) that and sed is already taken

Why? What good could possibly come from that? (Sorry, just saw an episode of 3rd Rock where that line was used and I had to try it.) -- Tony 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that and would you see a way to succinctly add the above to the text in a new section perhaps? :-) --Kim Bruning 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First, FYI, I realized how difficult it will be to see the initial post as its own, so I blockquoted put it in its entirety into a table. If there is a better way to format its isolation for better readability, please feel to do so.
I could trim it down a bit. Most of the rationalization probably could be kept here in the discussions instead of with what would be the main text. Or...could we all refine it into a sub-essay (or a related essay)? Which would be the best? I thought it was a short and easily explained concept...until I actually explained it to my satisfaction. -- Tony 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironically enough

... this page has so many shortcuts pointing to it that the list looks about fit to burst out of the essay box. æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑14t04:54z

[edit] Some of the redirects to this page

Some of the "shortcuts" to this page from the main space seem utterly redundant considering others; ie: we have WP:OMG AND WP:OMG!. Waste of a shortcut if you ask me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Powers T 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)