Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages

Solution in search of a problem

I just added "Solution in search of a problem" which appears frequently on policy discussions. The text I added is largely based on User:Gigs great comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete user right. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it, per Stifle's reply on that page and because it is quite valid to state this. ansh666 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We should probably address it. Many of these points have both a "regular" and "inverted" case that are equally fallacious, and many of them are like the slippery slope argument – they can be valid in certain contexts but often applied in invalid, fallacious ways. Many things proposed are in fact solutions in search of problems, yet also the flippant answer "solution in search of a problem" is often irrationally offered in response to a solution to an actual problem that the commenter simply didn't take time to understand. I've probably said enough already to draft the gist of the point that could be added to the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

“Too much work”

Should an argument like “too much work”/“too tedious” be included here? If it already is (or if it’s somewhere else), I can’t find it. Rationale would be similar to WP:NOEFFORT: the project is collaborative, and no one person is required to do all the work necessary to implement a given proposal. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although Wikipedia is a collaborative project with many volunteers, there are no assigned tasks and the volunteers may not work on what you think they should. I've seen editors create or suggest vast projects which tend to get pretty much abandoned when the proposer loses interest and moves on to other things. Often these massive projects, while interesting or even potentially useful, tend not to really fit with the core mission of being an encyclopedia. Sometimes these ideas find new life as a Wikia or another website entirely. Sometimes "too much work" really translates to "cool idea, but you're probably not going to follow through with it" and they're just trying to be diplomatic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Anything at WP:AADD (etc.) that can be generalized as applicable to WP disputes (especially content ones, though not necessarily limited to article content) should be broadened and included here. I frequently encounter people trying to WP:GAME / WP:LAWYER about relying on bogus rationales in section content disputes, and disputes about policy and guideline wording, when one points out that their argument is bogus for AADD reasons that apply, per WP:COMMONSENSE to other types of discussion, and they just retort that AADD is about page deletion discussions so their fallacious reasoning is somehow "valid" outside that nominal context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please help improve this page to the same level of development and clarity as WP:AADD

Please feel free to help me improve this page. I'd been thinking of working on it for a long time, and no one else has, so I've started. I'm picking kind of random entries, and normalizing them to actual policy, as well as to the intent and depth of their counterparts at WP:AADD when they exist, as well as giving them their own shortcuts, and the {{ATA shortcut notice|type=Wikipedia}} template under the shortcuts, and cross-referencing between the AADD and AADP entries.

I think the main reason no one bothers to improve this page or cite it is that it's very difficult to refer to anything in it due to lack of shortcuts (who wants to type out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) instead of WP:NOWORK?), ergo no one sees it, so no one works on it. It's amazing how much solid advice is already in there, and how much WP:LAME WP:DRAMA could be avoided by citing to it frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: One clear problem is that a lot of this was copied over verbatim from [an old version of] AADD, and still retains many references to WP:Notability and examples that pertain to notability and article deletion, when the present essay is about content disputes generally. This material needs to be replaced with more generalized content and policy/guideline citations that deal with addition/removal of material from pages (and other editorial disputes/discussions, without being redundant with any of the related essays listed at WP:Arguments to avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of changes. A few of the things I'm thinking about right now:

• When can comparison to Britannica or other encyclopedias be appropriate? I think sometimes it can be, but I also think it's misused more often than not, e.g. citing encyclopedias or dictionaries for article definitions when we have much stronger sources available.
• Something about ad hominem directed at an article subject, or other arguments relating to like or dislike for the subject (in contrast to like or dislike for the content). I'm thinking of e.g. editors who support or oppose content based on political party lines, except they generally won't say things like "the person being quoted opposes my politics so they don't deserve to be mentioned here" - although that sort of argument could still be used an example. It might be that the broader version is just outside the scope of this page, but I think it would be good to include arguments used in civil POV pushing where possible.
• Is there anything else that could go in the "individual merit" section? If not, maybe it would be better to merge it.

--Sunrise (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Can we add the argument " this page shouldn't be moved to X because X already redirects here"? This is illogical because it defies the reason why we even have an article moving process in the first place as many proposed new titles are already redirects towards the current title..--Prisencolin (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Horse trading

I'm not going to add this since it came up in a pending discussion where I'm involved. But it seems like a possible new thing to add under "#Individual merit".
HORSE TRADING
* Support Support x, provided I get to do y at article Foo. -BribeTaker
* Opposed Oppose x, unless I get to do y at article Foo. -HostageTaker
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that closing has happened, I'll be bold and add this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OTHERCONTENT

Revamped this section (diff). Mainly this was done for clarity, as I felt the grammar was lacking in some places, but after looking at WP:OTHERSTUFF, it became clear this section needed some work. I borrowed some of the phrasing and verbiage from the other essay, and I think it's more effective for the opening paragraph to retain one narrative, which is the negative aspect (the cons) regarding the comparative statements in arguments. Save the counter argument (the pros) for the succeeding paragraphs to illustrate when OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply or should be carefully evaluated.

Remsense, I noticed your concern about the changes to the examples, but these are fairly minor changes to slightly improve grammar and enhance context, which in turn should add some clarity and meaning. Take the first bullet point, for example, which states, "This information is in article x as well". This was changed to: "This information should exist here, because it exists in article x." The subtle change may not seem like much, but it does add a bit of clarity by contrasting here vs article x. Also, if you look down at the first Remove example, it is written in the same contrasting format. We're being consistent by making them match. Do we need to continue breaking down each one? Do you feel (strongly) that none of these example changes are an improvement? Honestly, the examples matter less to me than the prose below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the changes made.in this edit. While I agree there's room to make the previous prose more concise, I cannot help but see the current prose as acutely deficient. The sentence In discussions contesting the inclusion of content, pointing out that another article contains similar content does not prove that the contested content should exist in the article under discussion; it's quite possible that the other article's content should be removed, but no one has noticed it yet, or it has not been sufficiently challenged. is extremely awkward and the paragraph simply does not do a good job at explaining why certain arguments should be avoided. As for "save the cons for a new paragraph"—I do not see why this would be better for the reader, if I'm understanding correctly.Remsense ‥ 诉 03:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's first take a look at what you changed. It does not match what you quoted above (I had made an additional edit). From the revision history:

In content dispute discussions, pointing out the existence of similar content at another article does not prove that same content should exist in the article under discussion; it's quite possible that content at the other article should be removed, but no one has noticed it yet, or it has not been sufficiently challenged.

This is more concise than the version you quoted. The previous revision is also more descriptive than the current revision, because it breaks the opening statement down into two parts. It tells readers 1) you cannot point to the existence of something somewhere else for justification, and 2) you cannot point to the omission of something either for the same kind of justification. Then it goes on to explain why as well. On the "other article" editors want to "point" to, no one may not have noticed the content in question, or if they have, it may not have been properly (or successfully) challenged. That is useful information to have.

Furthermore, as I mentioned to you above Remsense, the verbiage and phrasing I'm introducing coincides with what is currently being used at WP:OTHERSTUFF (kind of ironic that I'm pointing to another essay in this content dispute, isn't it?). That's not justification alone, of course, but it makes total sense. We should give a brief explanation why these arguments are "generally unconvincing" and not just say they are. The attempts to improve this essay move it in that direction. Hoping to save all the reverting for after discussion and find more compromise along the way, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's probably worthwhile to more explicitly emphasize absence as well as presence—I suppose I may just be reading the diction differently, as "whether" by itself equally connotes a binary between presence and absence? Sorry for coming off particularly strong before. Remsense ‥ 论 21:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually that's a good point. Less wordy to drop "or not" and probably sounds less like a double-negative, since we already have "cannot" in the sentence. I'll revert that. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So next steps? I concede there's probably a way to blend the two revisions, or perhaps lean into mine and make it more concise. I do think it would be better to keep the first paragraph focused on the OTHERCONTENT argument – why it is unconvincing. Then in the follow-up paragraph, state the exception(s) or counter-argument. Trying to cram it all together in one paragraph seems a bit convoluted and unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Per others

I think Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Per_others section is unhelpful. Sometimes, great arguments have already been made above and there's no need to add to a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Simply saying "Support/oppose per above" should be sufficient, without need to repeat the same arguments and WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)