Template talk:WikiProject Computer science

Related may be to broad

It seems to be expressed that those on the project don't want to handle every related article. Perhaps, a few words can be updated to reflect such notion: "organize information in articles related to computer science". Otherwise, the tag might be put on all related articles. It just might avoid further debate to update it a bit. Any suggestions on the words? — Dzonatas 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning -> within

This is fine:

"This article is related to WikiProject Computer science,"

However, this is illogical:

"an attempt to better organize articles concerning all aspects of computer science."

How can an article be related to computer science while it also concerns itself with all aspects of computer science. That would make the article tagged completely and specifically about computer science. I doubt that is the intention. Certainely, those articles are not "concerning all aspects of computer science." The Haskell language, for example, is not concerned with all aspects of computer science. The article itself is "within" "all aspects of computer science." There are other articles that are just about a part of CS and not all aspects of CS. — Dzonatas 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Haskell is, indeed, not all aspects of computer science. It is one of the aspects of computer science, which is exactly what the template says. I don't see the problem here? —Ruud 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Concerning" is a gerund - "within" is prepositional. — Dzonatas 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is WikiProject Computer science that is "concerned with all aspects of computer science". The comma should make this distinction clear. However, since this is apparently not clear enough, I have modified the wording (again) in an effort to clarify things. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now we are back to two phrases attached to a clause.

Clause: "This article is related to WikiProject Computer science,"

Phrase: "which is an attempt to better organize articles"

Phrase: "concerning all aspects of computer science."

The gerund, "concerning," modifies "articles." Surely, that is not what is intended when these phrases are put together. (Hint: make less use of gerunds.) — Dzonatas 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your most recent edit:

This article is related to WikiProject Computer science, which is a project concerned about all aspects of computer science and attempts to better organize these articles.

Organize which articles? Furthermore, I don't think the WPCS is "concerned about" all CS articles. I can certainly think of a few that I'm "concerned about", but not all of them. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a revert war over a single sentence again, but that change totally changed the semantics of the sentence. Please, Dzonatas, propose your senetences on the talk page so we can discus/vote on them first. —Ruud 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Science is an attempt to better organize (the set of all) articles concerning (any) aspects of Computer Science. In the unattainable limit, that set of articles will (collectively) cover all aspects of computer science. In the meantime, WPCS works to better organize the subset that exists. I still don't know how I should vote in the poll. Cjoev 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now we have, "which is an attempt to organize all articles that concern any aspect of computer science". How is this idealy different from, "an attempt to better organize articles within all aspects of computer science"? — Dzonatas 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first is grammatically correct, while the latter isn't. —Ruud 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. — Dzonatas 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both phrases apparently mean the same thing to you, why don't we just agree to use the version that everyone else seems to be happy with? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let Koot prove it. — Dzonatas 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll

The template should say "... within all aspects ..."

The template should say "... concerning all aspects ..."

• —Ruud 19:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC) - compromise proposal below --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• If my new option is considered too weak. --Mgreenbe 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The template should say "... concerning aspects ..."

• Natural language supports implicit quantification. --Mgreenbe 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Uhh.. but wouldn't it imply "some" in this case? —Ruud 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, it's too ambiguous. Natural language doesn't support implicit quantification. :) --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten Dz's most recent edit to this (I hope) compromise form.

This article is related to WikiProject Computer science, which is an attempt to organize all articles that concern any aspect of computer science.

Is this acceptable to everyone? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (Updated to remove "refactoring" by Dzonatas — I prefer not to have my signature attached to things I did not write myself, and don't want to engage in a revert war. My original comments can be found in the edit history) --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're too fast for me; that's almost exactly what I wrote above. The only problem with it is that it's a bit territorial. What if an article is concerned simultaneously with some aspect of CS and some aspect of something else? Cjoev 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Great minds... :-) Anyway, about the territoriality issue: we hammered on that a bit over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Computer science. That's why the template says that the article in question is "related to" WPCS, instead of being "part of" WPCS. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not copy Template:Chemistry, without the plural "projects" at the end? "Supported" and "central approach" are particularly appealing. I find its template remarkably gentle; moreover, their form is supported by WP:TS. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm about ready to support any reasonable proposal that has a chance of ending the silly bickering that is currently going on. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Support —Ruud 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is related to WPCS, which is an attempt to create an organized collection of articles concerned with all aspects of computer science. -- Cjoev 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we 're having this debate: I would like to insert the word "better" immediately preceding the word "organize". Normally I would just make the edit, but that doesn't seem appropriate given the circumstances. Are there any objections to the insertion of the word "better" in the location I'm proposing? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections. —Ruud 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Do it. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed passive voice:

WikiProject Computer science attempts to organize all articles that are related to any aspect of computer science, and a wikipedian chose to include this article in the effort. — Dzonatas 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We are explicitly trying to get away from any suggestion that a particular article is in any way a "part of" or "included in" the project. That is why the wording "related to" was selected in the first place. If you are going to suggest new wording, please make sure that it maintains a tone that does not sound territorial. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It didn't seem so territorial with "related to any aspect of computer science" instead of "related to computer science." — Dzonatas 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The territorial tone is a result of the words "include this article in the effort". We are trying to avoid having arguments about whether a given article should be "included" in the project or not. If the template has the word "include" (or something that similar) on there, then there will inevitably be arguments about whether certain articles should have the template attached. If the template just says "related", then the line is much fuzzier. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Taken from ideas above:

WikiProject Computer science attempts to organize all articles within any aspect of computer science, and a wikipedian concerned with this article chose to include it in the effort. — Dzonatas 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal — Why don't we just axe everything that is disputed? The project name should make it reasonable clear what the project is about. We would end up with:

This article is related to WikiProject Computer science. If you would like to participate in this project you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Then we can all go back to making useful contributions to Wikipedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't understand this argument: the only apparent dissenter is not even a participant of the project. Leland McInnes 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful. Less process, more computer science. --Mgreenbe 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas was just blocked for violating 3RR so it would not be necessary to now, but I wouldn't object. —Ruud 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed phrase. Hopefully this will prevent this same argument from arising again later. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

An issue still was not addressed. It's really minor. I think it is really silly to avoid it. The template is easily a place to discuss issues, as it doesn't need sources or other pieces of policy like regular articles do. Ruud seems to like to block me rather than discuss. As simply I haven't seen him answer my questions, I continued to edit. What would you do if someone reverts you but doesn't discuss it? I didn't accept the quick-shot for consensus, so it isn't that I didn't want to vote. Why should I have to answer to someone's questions when they can't even answer mine? It's about mutual respect here. It's strange how Ruud didn't also get blocked since "it takes two to tangle." Actually, almost everybody here was about to get blocked from a discussion with admins. Almost everybody violated policy -- not just me. It's pretty clear that Ruud has used a certain technique to get people blocked when he disagrees. Instead, discuss it. Just like on the CS pages, I see no honorable debate here, which is one that is discussed by facts and not by policy. In the end, mgreenbe actually did take over the grammar issue with me. It was just a simple question to get someone elses viewpoint. Ruud couldn't give me his viewpoint and had to block me. Is my viewpoint in the above consensus? Are you sure we really have consensus? I was blocked and kept out of it. Did anybody say "Hey, wait... Dzonatas just got blocked... lets wait until he can vote also." Do you understand this point? — Dzonatas 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed sentence because it was disputed. The template, as it stands right now, contains only things that everyone appears to agree on (even you stated that "This article is related to WP CS" is fine). If you would like to propose something to take the place of the removed sentence, please go ahead. But propose it here first. Don't just insert it into the template. Then we can get a consensus on that sentence, and add it to the template. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

About the Poll section

Wow... You do track changes. I didn't even get to type the above quick enough. I perfectly understand where Theodore7 comes from about edit clashes, as this one reports I had to merge my edit because you posted a poll before I could even save my notes for the change. — Dzonatas 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should have posted your speech first? —Ruud 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I've noticed that User:R.Koot has made two reverts in one day. Where is it allowed in policy to make two reverts in one day:

1. 19:07, 9 February 2006 - identical - "rv, gr"
2. 20:43, 9 February 2006 - identical - "rv (maybe propose it on the talk page first, k?)"

There is no policy on how many are "allowed", but rather how many are not allowed: 4. See WP:3RR. --Mgreenbe 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The policy also states to only limit to one (1) revert a day, and that it doesn't license 3 free reverts a day. — Dzonatas

You do realize that you violated 3RR (probably twice) do you? —Ruud 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you have not answered question yet. I do realize I have made edits to the template, and that you have considered such edits as reverts. Prove it. I disagree. — Dzonatas 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Koot says the first revert is about grammar. Unless he can prove where I am wrong about the grammar, it is a personal attack. It should be easy to point out if it really is just about grammar. — Dzonatas 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Abitrary section header

Part of editing on Wikipedia is accepting criticism of your writing. Sometimes this criticism will be inexact or even wrong: it is still not a personal attack. Comments on someone's writing (not their writing ability) are never personal attacks. They can, however, be uncivil.

Most importantly, there is a legitimate semantic issue with the sentence, as "within ... aspects" misapplies a metaphor of location. --Mgreenbe 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let koot prove it since he stated it is "gr". He made the point, and he should be able to easy explain his point. All I have seen is others answer for him. Give him a chance to prove his points. — Dzonatas 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us start here

This page is so simple. It really should be not controversial. This page can actually help us. Maybe, you don't see it that way because you feel you have people on your side already. We shouldn't pick sides. That's why I didn't like the poll above. It makes people choose sides. It makes it hard to be neutral.

Let's work on facts. I've choosen a sentence that doesn't present facts: "This article is related to WikiProject Computer science."

• It's passive voice

Passive voice is not a complete idea. There are times to use it (like I stated it is "fine" above), but, on a factual basis, this isn't one of them. We can improve the quality of this.

"WikiProject Computer Science has supported this article."

Pretty simple change? It states a fact and not a goal. It doesn't say that the project will continue to support the article. It just says it has supported it. It doesn't say it won't support it any more. It doesn't even say how it is even related or if it is even related at all. It sets an example. — Dzonatas 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The existing phrasing is more consistent with the template messages for other projects. If you do not like the passive voice, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Template_messages/Talk_namespace, instead of continuing the debate here.
2. WPCS does not "support" any article. The template is intended as advertising: a way to let people know the project exists. See here for earlier discussion on this issue.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to changing "related to" to "supported by", but I'm afraid that "has" would imply that the article currently is no longer supported by the project, to some people. —Ruud 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that "supports" would imply (to some people) that the project is actively maintaining articles that it may not actually be doing anything with. Part of the problem here is that WPCS as a project isn't necessarily doing anything to a particular article, and we don't want to imply that it is. I'd suggest something like the wording that I earlier proposed ("Contributors to this article may be interested in joining WPCS..."), except that we've already had that debate. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• A quick tally of Wikipedia:Template_messages/Talk_namespace shows most templates do not use passive voice. Many have stated a "This article is a part of..." phrase, which is not passive but still uses a "to be" form.
• This is in regards to CS and the project. This is not about all the templates. To take it up at Wikipedia talk:Template_messages/Talk_namespace starts a much bigger project then wanted.
• If the template is an advertisement, do you want to advertise style?
• The word "has" followed by a past tense verb is a present prefect form. If read correctly, it does not imply the project doesn't support it anymore, like "WPCS had supported this article..." or "WPCS supported this article." — Dzonatas 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I do not want to have yet another extended argument about this. At this point I would like propose that we simply use the standard wording from the basic wikiproject template. I'd rather have arguments about which articles are "part of" WPCS than these protracted arguments about grammar. --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside: you state This is in regards to CS and the project. You are not (last I checked) a member of WPCS. So why pick on our template? There are several others that use the form that you are objecting to. Are you also bringing this issue up with them? --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Next step

Leland reverted: "rv. to consensus of project participants", but I didn't see any further consensus above for such revert. Next step, lets discuss this objection (the revert).

Was the change a suggestion of a project participant? Notice I didn't use my version that I proposed, as Allan object to the purely active voice. Ruud suggested "supported by." Both Allan and Ruud are project participants. I just implemented the change. Indeed, there seemed to be a consensus between the two. Therefore, the edit summary doesn't quite follow the action.

If there is an objection that I implemented the change and not one of the project participants, the edit summary should reflect that. Even if it did and being this is wikipedia, you agreed to allow others to modify your work. It shouldn't matter who actually makes the change.

Any other objections before I change it back to "supported by?" — Dzonatas 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science#template_inclusion first, to see why this change would not be wise. At the moment Allan, Leland, I and I believe Mgreebe object to "supported by" and support the current template. Please Dzonatas, this really isn't worth fighting over, I'm sure we all have more important things to do. —Ruud 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I object. I also never gave my support to your change in the first place, and I don't think Ruud gave unqualified support either. Leland, as his edit summary stated, reverted back to the last version that had the consensus support of WPCS project participants. While Wikipedia is about allowing others to modify your work, it seems sensible (to me at least) that a template created for, and used by, a particular project should say what the project participants want it to say. As Ruud has said, please let's just move on. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier today on this talk page - I am surprised this is an issue. The current form to which I reverted is one that seemed to have support from all project participants involved in the discussion, and, in fact, "related to" was even okayed by Dzonatas earlier in the discussion. As Ruud and Allan have said, can't we just move on? Leland McInnes 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion about the template inclusion. Where have I said this is a "fight?" Where have I stated final approval when I stated "fine." It just wasn't big issue to address at the time. I was blocked from consensus anyways, remember? The consensus is not complete. It is not fair to block someone and declare finalization. That is censorship. It is a prime example that makes the project look more like a cabal. The gist of this is about us being able to work together on these articles. That actually is pretty important. This template is just a baby step for us. I hate to be reverted for "just because," but it appears a few members here do that. I feel like I would be reverted if I tried to add my name as a participant to the project. If it truly is just a project, it shouldn't matter if people want to sign up if the effort among everybody is the same, anyways.

• I objected to the passive voice. Passive voice is not in-line with accessibility. The project uses a goal towards accessibility. The ideas presented by passive voice is not complete. They need to be reformed or explained. This template is just an example, and perhaps we can amend our ability to work together and finally agree. For example, Allan stresses consensus over and over, but it just seems stressed upon me and not equally over everybody. Even on my talk page is a note about it. However, was such note left on Lelands page? No. Okay. That point is about the objections. Where here on the talk page to discuss this.
• I objected to the passive voice.
• Ruud suggest "supports," and stated he wouldn't object. It appears that opinion has changed.
• Allan objected to the use of "supports" or the version I suggested: "WPCS supports this article." It's unclear exactly what the objection was on, but it now appears he objects to Ruud suggestion of "supported by."
• There was talk that "related to" suggests something territorial. I agree, and I object to "related to." Even if I'm not a project member, my objection and any other non-project member's objection should be considered. The project members should consider that they advertise this template on non-WPCS pages, so it affects those pages. (Also, I've made a comment on the project pages, but I haven't actually changed stuff around that is better suited for project members to do.)
• Leland reverted the last change but made no other suggestion to improve upon it based on the objections above.
• Therefore, I propose "apropos" instead of "related to": "This article is apropos to WikiProject Computer science." Any objections? — Dzonatas 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While I don't object to "supported by" in theory, I object to further changes to the template. It's fine; let's leave it; we shouldn't waste time on this nonsense. --Mgreenbe 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can edit the template, so you can't object to further changes. Robert's Rules of Order, a commonly used guide on assembly, covers the aspects of objections, and essentially it covers that a vote can not be made to not do something. It is wise to follow such rules, but of course you are not binded to it like how this is still just open content. Back to order: there are objections to "related to." I see there is still a way for "supported by" to be used but Allan has objected to it. I also suggested "apropos." Are there any further objections? — Dzonatas 03:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are à propos de bottes; "apropos" does not mean what you think it does. OED lists: "to the purpose: fitly, opportunely; with regard to, in respect of, as suggested by; to the point or purpose; having direct reference to the matter in hand; pertinent, opportune, 'happy'; an opportune or pertinent occurence; without serious motive, without rhyme or reason". The last is meaning is, shall we say, apropos? Moreover, apropos comes from a Latin passive verbal adjective. So it's really no better. --Mgreenbe 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"A turn on the subject?" I'm not about to argue the technicality of that. :) Since it seems that turn notes we are closer to terms and not on a different subject, how about if we use something stated from above as in "in reference to": "This article is referred by WPCS." Any objections? — Dzonatas 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what "is referred by" is supposed to mean. Not to mention that it is as much "passive voice" as "is related to". So what exactly is the problem with "is related to"? --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I don't recall seeing you state your "final approval" anywhere, you had stated that the phrase "related to" was "fine", and everybody else involved had already (in earlier discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and here) said that they found that wording acceptable. All of the active dispute at the time you were blocked was over something else entirely. As I said above, I removed the disputed sentence because it was disputed, thereby leaving the template in a state in which everything on it was something that was not (then) in dispute. In other words, that version contained only the consensus elements of the original template. Obviously, that has now changed, since you have raised new objections.
• While you may view WPCS as a "cabal", it is not.
• You would not be reverted if you tried to add your name to the participant list of the project. Certainly, I would not make such a revert, and I think anyone who did make such a revert would quickly find themselves very unpopular with the rest of the members of the project.
• It is not obvious to me that "is related to" is passive voice (assertions of fact are an edge case). Even if it is passive voice, that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, passive voice is often considered preferable when one wants to place emphasis on the object (such as "This article").
• Yes, I stress consensus. No, I have not put a note on Leland's talk page. Yes, I have communicated with him privately. No, I do not think that his reversion contradicted my desire to achieve consensus, since it was a reversion from an obviously non-consensual version to one that did have consensus until you raised your latest objections. I would prefer to see us leave the template in a form that most seem happy with, until we have hammered out any changes on the talk page.
• I have objected to any variation on "supports" or "is supported by", since, as I have stated several times now, I do not think that it is appropriate for WPCS to state that it "supports" any article.
• I don't recall seeing anyone object that "related to" suggests anything territorial. In fact, "related to" was specifically selected to avoid any indication of territoriality. In what way is "related to" territorial?
• You are more than welcome to raise objections to the template. What I (and I believe others) take exception to is the fact that you go beyond raising objections, and make direct edits that we disagree with.
• I think Mgreenbe has described the issues with "apropos" far better than I could.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've objected to "related to" from the start. I'm not the only one as others commented on the WPCS pages.
• Since I was blocked, I didn't even get a chance to object to the deletion. The deleted phrases also change the idea of the sentence. Now, I am here to reflect on the idea and make that objection. I don't see how you could not listen to my objection based on the account that I was blocked, or even see the previous consensus (while I was blocked) as unfair.
• I've noted your objections above. The phrase with "is related to" is passive because it contains no subject, despite that is does contain an object. It is not a sentence. Hardly something I would want to advertise since Computer Scientists are supposed to be well trained. Passive voice is used in narratives, but these articles aren't narratives. Obviously, I haven't join the group for a reason -- it's right here and it's this simple.
• The phrase with "is referred by" is generally not considered passive because the "by..." implies a subject. It is not the preferred way to make a sentence. Any strict modern language style rejects such form; otherwise, it is still accepted.
• An encyclopedia is a reference, so it seems natural that "reference" or "referred by" is appropriate. Also, this use of the falicy in the syntax exploits exactly what you wanted, Allan. You seem to not make an assertion that these articles are actually related to computer science itself (as in territorial if the template is included in the article) or that the project members are obligated to continue to support such articles.
• Even though I have been reverted, argued with, and blocked... have I not listened? Sorry, I can not accept any form of a "go away." I'll join the WPCS group if my change sticks. I'll leave the WPCS group if the members can't follow WP:1RR. I feel the WPCS project should adopt the WP:1RR policy. — Dzonatas 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1RR policy has its benefits, that is unquestioned. However, you should not justify your edit with that as a reason when there is no official adoption by the WPCS project. Your decision in joining any group should look towards the common good (and consensus) of the team and not whether your decision is accepted (in this case, the assumption of the 1RR policy beforehand). Not all of my suggestions have been accepted, but that does not stop me from applying for membership (to any group). -- ^Evanx(tag?) 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, when you wrote:

This is fine:

"This article is related to WikiProject Computer science,"

• Please show me where someone aside from you has objected to the phrase "is related to". I have just gone back through the WPCS talk pages, and can find no such objections.
• For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that "is related to" is passive voice. However, passive voice is used in many technical documents. It is a valid grammatical form. Its use in this case puts the emphasis on "this article", where it belongs. Again I ask, what is your objection to "is related to"?
• The word "by..." indicates the agent. Would not the active form of the sentence be "WPCS refers this article"? — note: I am not suggesting that we use this version either.
• Regardless of whether or not "This article is referred by WikiProject Computer science" is grammatically correct, in my opinion it sounds odd, and I believe that its meaning is unclear (Does WPCS use the article as a reference? Or does WPCS refer people to the article?) Using a "syntactic fallacy" (as you put it) seems like a good way to confuse people. Given all of this, I would prefer not to have "...is referred by..." on the template.
• have I not listened? — apparently not, since you continue to make edits based on proposals to which other people have raised objections. I again beg you to discuss your proposals further on the talk page, instead of making changes that you know others will disagree with.
• You are welcome to join WPCS whenever you wish to.
• For the record: I am not in any way attached to the phrase "is related to". If someone — anyone — would like to propose a better alternative, I will happily support it.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest a vote

As a neutral party, I cannot understand why a debate is needed for simple semantics. It is just a template.

To Allan: I reccomend taking a vote.

To Dzonatas: I reccomend taking William M. Connolley's advice.

-- ^Evanx(tag?) 08:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. I'm happy to put things to a vote, as long as all interested parties agree to be bound by the outcome of the vote. Otherwise, I guess we'll just have to keep hammering away at this until we achieve some kind of consensus. Assuming everyone agrees to a binding vote, would you be willing to organize the voting process? It would probably be best of a neutral third party ran things. --Allan McInnes (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Allan, in regards to the Evanx's advice, this vote is not good. It appears to be an attempt to quiet. The vote would erase all objections we have worked on above and go with whatever. That is not a good example for the group. It does not mean that it could be successful, but at the right time with the right motive may be better. I disagree that I have not listened. Perhaps, you don't like the fact that we can't micromanage people on open content. However, my edit have been a bit bold and surprised you, yet did I do it out of order? Is there really an established order? There is some order to wikipedia and more in development. When I look at WPCS and other groups, I see groups that can establish order out of this chaos. Do they acheive any order, or do they just chaotically vote? This vote suggested above is out of order, I sincerely can not accept it in this manner. I have involved myself in such chaotic style of votes previously here on wikipedia, but I regret them now. We can do better. We can start an example.

• As regards to the changes, I thought I implemented what everyone wanted, but I have made one objection -- to object to where we just settle on something to just get it over with and done. What does that show, in this "advertisement" tag, on the outside? I can think of a few points, and I'm sure you can also. It appears you have started to see my point about style, as "is referred by" doesn't actually sound right even if it works better. I used it because I thought you objected to the active voice. Perhaps, I misunderstood that point.

• One thing I did notice is the first statement of which WPCS has on its page: "Some Wikipedians have formed a WikiProject to assemble and compile a comprehensive Computer science reference for Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians." This is good. If this project really helps focus the efforts, isn't all this debate well worth what it strives to do? We have only just begun, but do we want to quickly end it with an out of order vote? How did that help to focus this effort? How did this vote set an example for that statement?

Does WikiProject computer science strive to become a "reference" for computer science articles? It does seem true, or it does to an extent where it intends not to actually be a reference for articles to use as a source in its facts, as wikipedia can not use itself as a source.

That statement on the WPCS page promotes a "reference," and the word, in proper syntax, does mean "related" or "referred." Therefore, I have two proposals: I have a proposal:

WikiProject Computer science has referenced this article. ...

or

This article is referenced at WikiProject Computer science. ...

— Dzonatas 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would the vote be "not good"? I myself will not be participating this time. It seems most are willing to be bound by this. It's a very, very simple issue really and you all have to get over it. Semantics should never be played out like what has been happening. Remember the definition debate? It was all over semantics as well. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The call to vote is out of order. As people have signed to be "binded" below, it affects such bind, and it affects such persons, and it is out of order, and it is, therefore, illegal. Each country and state may have implemented such legalities differently, but I know that the flow of this data is influenced by certain order. Please, review the Brown Act for a common implementation. If this legal issue is too much to handle, then lets drop the called vote process here and now. — Dzonatas 17:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are saying a vote on this template change is illegal??? And you want to argue legality instead of progressing? Do notice that this is going nowhere as long as you raise objections to the template. If you cannot convince in a debate and you refuse to allow a vote process simply because of "legal issues", how else can this be settled? Hmm? Perhaps you have a superior solution? An enlightening rhetoric? You have to admit that it is absurd to argue legality regarding a mere template. Would you prefer to bring more hassle through a medcabal? We have already been through it once and it was an entirely drawn-out affair that has left everyone drained and the article none too much improved in respite. You do understand that you might have a problem working with people? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you have been met with many of such objections (which I see happening frequently in your history), perhaps your improvement is simply not appreciated and it is best you seek other avenues of contributing. As far as I am concerned, I am working towards building an encyclopedia with an international team, composed both of critics and fellows. I prefer not to waste time and effort in arguing what this issue is all about: semantics. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 06:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I might as well attempt to answer some of the questions since they pertain to doubt.

• There is no attempt to quiet, merely the attempt to proceed.
• The right time is now and everyone has the right motive, that is why we are trying to resolve this and go on with more "computer science" and less "debate". If you are insinuating an ulterior motive from me because I called in the medcabal from an earlier dispute, please think better of me.
• Most CS articles are written with people who prefer to reach consensus before making a change that could very well upset many. Please look at previous dispute and ascertain why.
• There is an established order: albeit a very informal one. Research on prior point.
• A vote is not chaotic, neither is it out of order (at least in this case). In the very least, do not assume bad faith. This is meant to help. Admins and most other positions are voted in. A vote is also very democratic and one of the best ways to resolve disputes before emotions set in.
• I have added your suggestions. I am sure that if your suggestion is amicable and that you are able to convince that it is the best, the others will agree. After all, it is basic courtesy in debates to come to this.

I reiterate the advice that a certain admin gave: Learn to work with people.

-- ^Evanx(tag?) 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I stated two reasons why the vote is bad: (1) it stops discussion, which is exactly what a vote is intended to do, it is out of order; (2) some countries may not care but others implement rules of public assembly -- a complexity that can be avoided both by discussion. We discuss just to bring ideas to the table. It is courtsesy to organize such ideas and make use of them constructively, and the vote degenerates the effort here. This isn't a minute by minute debate, which is where a vote is actually needed to bring on the next item in debate. However, we can continue to edit any part of wikipedia. Before we diverge to much from this, any other comments from anybody on the last few proposals? — Dzonatas 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion already and many ideas/moot points have already been raised. Yet it has become close to an impasse, all because of semantics, and hence the deliberation to a vote.. We should not allow that to take up our valuable time and effort. Then after can we seek action. Please cooperate so we can start the voting process. Feel free to continue your argument for the support of your own suggested alternatives. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Evanx suggested a vote. I said I'd be willing to give it a try, under the conditions that I stated above (i.e. everybody agrees to a binding vote). Obviously, those conditions were only going to be fulfilled if everyone here felt that it was "the right time". If you don't feel it's "the right time", then let's not vote. As I said above, the alternative is to keep working on a consensus.

What I object to, and have objected to from the start of this, is not the inability to "micromanage people", but your persistence in making changes to the template without discussing them here first, despite repeated requests that you do so. Part of the Wikipedia approach to achieving order is "taking it to the talk page" instead of engaging in edit wars. The only reason that your edits haven't resulted in a protracted edit war so far is that the rest of us are trying to "take it to the talk page". I again renew my request that you do so as well.

As regards to the changes, I thought I implemented what everyone wanted — I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion, since every change you have made so far has been met with objections.

I appreciate your desire to "not settle". However, allow me to suggest that your approach to editing is not conducive to achieving that desire, since it simply frustrates everyone else involved, and makes them want to settle so that they can get back to contributing to articles instead of arguing about templates.

If this project really helps focus the efforts, isn't all this debate well worth what it strives to do? — I'm afraid I fail to see the worth in expending large amounts of effort debating some minor wording issues on a talk page template. We are currently "focusing efforts" on this debate, instead of on actually improving the CS articles.

Does WikiProject computer science strive to become a "reference" for computer science articles? — not as far as I am aware. It strives to make the CS articles that are part of Wikipedia into an organized reference. The project itself is not a "reference".

--Allan McInnes (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Plea for cooperation

Dzonatas, I refer to this, under the section Actions and edits with widespread effects. I also quote from the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club which you are a part of and was also the reason you have been unblocked.

• Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise.
• Never revert more than once — always take it to the talk page.
• Avoid triggering edit wars — discuss major and/or controversial changes on the talk page beforehand.
• Be bold (not reckless) in editing.

I am not singling you out for the above, nor do I insinuate that you have violated any, but some may feel there may have been infractions on these. Most important is that you have agreed to some very binding terms yourself: These club members would show by example how to contribute in a harmonious, useful fashion. These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once". They would propose options on the talk page BEFORE making edits to the article. They might even wait an hour or a day for assent from others before making a change..

In fact, if you look at the history of computer science talk pages, I have supported your ideas before. I am not being unfair here. I would readily tell off R.Koot had he lanuched a personal attack (do note he has not since I have intervened in this dispute).

Please cooperate as best as you can. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this comment wasn't directed at me, since I have never been either blocked or unblocked. But the placement under my last comment, and the fact that it addresses "you" rather than a named individual confuses things a bit. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

All of us are (I assume) getting sick of the arguments over how the first sentence of the template should be phrased. Why don't we just eliminate everything controversial? In any of the forms proposed so far (supported/related/referred etc.), the first sentence really doesn't add a whole lot of useful information. So, I would like to propose the following sentence, to comprise the entire text of the template:

If you would like to participate in WikiProject Computer science, please visit the project and discussion pages.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Withdraw proposal per Ruud's comments below. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to assert that the associated article has some relevance to computer science, but if this stops the "discussion", please do it. --Mgreenbe 09:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have an assertion of that sort. Unfortunately, none of the sentences on the table at present seem to satisfy everyone. If you can think of a wording that everyone can live with, please propose it. Unless we can find such a wording soon, I feel that the only way to stop the argument is to remove the source of contention. But I will not doing anything until all interested parties agree that this proposal is a solution they can live with. --Allan McInnes (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am of the opinion that, thinking that removing yet another sentence from this template would stop the dispute, is a bit naive, apart from unnecesarily reducing its clarity and usefulness. —Ruud 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You're probably right. I was just hoping to find some way to end the arguing. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote

The following are the candidates for the disputed phrase in question. Only one vote is permitted from each wikipedian.

• Amend to: referred by

Support:

None at moment

• Amend to: related to

Support:

None at moment

• Amend to: supported by

Support:

None at moment

• Amend to: part of

Support:

None at moment

• Amend to: apropos

Support:

None at moment

• Reword to: WikiProject Computer science has referenced this article. ...

Support:

Dzonatas? {Please edit this line and confirm if you are)

• Condensation to : If you would like to participate in WikiProject Computer science, please visit the project and discussion pages.

Support:

None at moment

Feel free to add further suggestions but be mindful of the abovementioned.

-- ^Evanx(tag?) 09:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to be bound by this vote. --Allan McInnes (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to be bound by this vote. —Ruud 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to be bound by this vote. --Mgreenbe 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to be bound by this vote/ --Leland McInnes 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interim Measure

The template is likely to remain in a fixed state for some time while this dispute is ongoing. I would like to propose that, rather than simply leaving the template in any partisan version, we revert the template to a neutral version until the dispute is resolved. The most natural candidate for this is the default form of Template:WikiProjectNotice:

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

If this option is for some reason unacceptable I suggest blanking the template altogether until the dispute has been resolved.

Neither option is particularly palatable to any of the parties involved, but provides the most neutral interim form. Unless there are objections I will change the template to the default form tomorrow night. Leland McInnes 06:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)