Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words[edit]

The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.

And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:

“

Тем, кто дружен, не страшны тревоги,

Нам любые до́роги доро́ги!

”

This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".

And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "very special cases", these are quite common cases. And the "nutshell" is plain false. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.

Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.

Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only an assertion. Not proof. Not consensus. I see a dispute between two editors about something. There is no valid reason to delete. Keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not proof" - Nonsense. Right here I cited a Russian source for punctuation which describes the usage of "nonexisting" stress marks. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 2021 MoS RfC—@Altenmann:? Is the essay mostly inconsistent or mostly consistent with the RfC?—Alalch E. 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This good? Special:Permalink/1223236130? —Alalch E. 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As a starting point, OK. Later I will add specific advice based on sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. - Altenmann >talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, as a disputed single-author essay. Noted WP:OWNership issues are serious and will be solved by userfication. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
Please note that the essay has been successfully edited by many users, passed a WP:RM with discussion, and had a consensus version from September 2023. Then suddenly Altenmann appeared with this in January. — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I think we're good now actually.—Alalch E. 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has no business in wikispace and given the author of it was banned for civility issues around this topic i don't really see the point of userfying it—blindlynx 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shit sorry i thought Taurus Littrow wrote most of this, i didn't realize i wasn't looking at the earliest history—blindlynx 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The essay, in its current version, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1223433915 is consistent with the 2021 RfC and can't be described as a "disputed single-author essay". The problem is located in the previous wording: "Stress marks don't belong ... and should be removed on sight". And while that language was not fully consistent with the RfC result, it was not very far from it either. But now the wording has been tweaked to truly match the RfC, and that is how it should be. If someone wants more flexibility than the RfC allows, start a new RfC. If someone wants more rigidity, start a new RfC. In my opinion the existing RfC is satisfactory, and this essay is okay.—Alalch E. 10:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate explainer of extant consensus and past discussions akin to WP:RSP. Nardog (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]