Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words

Not a guideline

This is not a community-vetted guideline and one cannot make massive changes in Wikipedia citing this page. There is an established procedure to promote essays to guideline status, WP:PROPOSAL. If one is seriously concerned with this issue, please do this.

P.S. I am not particularly in favor of stress marks and probably vote against them, but I am against massive changes without establishing a community-wide consensus. - Altenmann >talk 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually think this essay is outdated or incomplete since there is no direct reference to this MoS RfC closed in May 2021 that found that there was a consensus to "generally omit stress marks". Malerisch (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This was a malformed and an improperly closed RfC . Four participants is far from being a valid decision-making Wikipedia-wide consensus. - Altenmann >talk 22:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the closure was improper? I don't think anyone appealed the closure, so I suspect that would be a surprise to the participants of the discussion (I count more than four, by the way). Malerisch (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK it was 5 (I didnt count SMcCandlish because he didnt vote, just wrote up a suggestion. There was two clear support votes, one clear oppose and one confused "limited support": this !voter wrote "I support the suggested inclusion of stress marks on Ukrainian words" , i.e., not support of removal of diacritics. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why I say RfC was malformed? Because the page is MoS, and the RfC did not discuss any suggestion for MoS. An lest it did not update MoS in this respect. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That said, an essay remains a non-binding essay and cannot serve as a basis for wikipedia-wide removal of stress marks. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That that said, I am personally nearly always against stress marks, because in 99.9% it is original research and wikipedia is not dictionary. At the same time, there are cases when the stress is not evident even for Russian speakers, and what is more, stress can be phonemic, i.e., it used distinguish one word from another, e.g., "zAmok" vs. zamOk". For the latter case almost always a reliable reference exist. I also agree that for a layman stress marks can be confused with spelling such as in French (Les Misérables) or Spanish (cabrón) pardon my French :-). For these situations I would advice to relegate the nuances into a footnote, in order not to clutter the lede. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the closer included the comments directly above the !voting section as well in their consideration as they wrote that Since the RfC below is inextricably linked to the preceding discussion it makes the most sense to evaluate them as a singular whole. Many RfC comments explicitly invoked the preceding discussion so it would be inappropriate to apply a formal close to the RfC only, so there would be even more than five participants.

Also, although the closure didn't modify the MoS itself, it did establish that removing stress marks is supported by existing policies. (I personally think it's a strange type of close, but that's what the closer decided.)

I agree that citing to an essay is not ideal, but I think that citing to the discussion itself is okay (the closer wrote that this discussion can be linked as normal to demonstrate this interpretation has consensus support). Malerisch (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, in the "comments directly above" I see two more editors supporting stress marks. All the more towards my opinion it was a malformed RfC and inappropriate close. - Altenmann >talk 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD

If yoiu continue reverting my edits, I report you for the voiolation of the WP:OWN policy. First time I was reverted because I assume there was no reference. Now I added text with reference. If you have objections, state them, not play revert wars. - Altenmann >talk 18:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary was "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - as clear a statement of ownership as it can be, which is inadmissible in a cooperative project of Wikipedia. If you want to remove something, you have to have stronger objections that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In the 2021 MoS RfC the vast majority was for retaining stress marks however hard you were pushing your opinion. - Altenmann >talk 18:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please calm down before reporting the non-existent user:Stress marks in East Slavic words, it's not a user talk page, and you don't even say who you're going to report. ;-)

Next, it's not me trying to "remove something", it's you trying to add almost the same amount of text as the whole page had contained before, and you do it to a page that had a perfectly consensus version almost a year ago. Your last edit shifts the focus of the essay from a simple statement that stresses should not be added to a detailed instruction on when they should. References are not really important in such a situation, as the page is not a mainspace article anyway.

By "vast majority" in the RfC you surely mean vast majority of comments (WP:BLUDGEONING) written by just one user who was indeffed and even globally locked as a result of this very issue. Does your browser render <s> there?

And I just wonder why you are so aggressive if we already agree on a most important point (quoting your words): I am personally nearly always against stress marks, because in 99.9% it is original research and wikipedia is not dictionary. — Mike Novikoff 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)