Talk:VR

primary topic

User:79.115.14.74 is asserting that Virtual reality is the primary topic for this title, and should be listed in the lead per MOS:DABPRIMARY. I tend to disagree, as while that is a common meaning in the tech and gaming sectors, there are many other meanings which may be widely used. Is there consensus for the change? Nick Number (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• That seems like a useful change. Technically, MOS:DABPRIMARY doesn't apply because VR is not a redirect, but it always makes sense to put what most readers of a particular dab page are probably seeking near the top, per MOS:DABORDER #2, to save them from finding the needle in the haystack. I don't see it hurting anyone. Station1 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You're correct; I misstated the application of the guideline. If Virtual reality is the primary topic then this dab should be moved to VR (disambiguation), replacing the existing redirect, and VR should be changed to redirect to Virtual reality. Nick Number (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if virtual reality is clearly the primary topic for "VR" (ie., more common than all other uses). I haven't researched it enough to know whether that's the case. But it is clearly at least one of the most common uses. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• You're saying "There are many other meanings which may be widely used". I'm not sure we would be able to name two of them. The medical one (venous return) is obscure, niche at best: even "variant reading", itself fairly rare, is more popular. What would be your suggested examples? 79.115.14.74 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Number: I think the right way procedurally to assess whether or not there is consensus is to post a Wikipedia:Requested move request the move of VR to VR (disambiguation) with VR then redirecting to Virtual reality. Probably 79.115.14.74 should request the change since it is they who challenge the status quo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody tell (me) what Bkonrad's problem is? He appears to be convinced about his "nonstandard edit" objection. Broken-record invocation of a technicality with no arguments, while refusing to see perspective or to recognize practically what the stakes are, suggests I was particularly offensive to him. I don't buy it he's just uncritically "following procedures" or too "programmed" by some Wikipedia style guide, nor that it's just age-related. I won't let him force me to just dismiss him. Editing Wikipedia should feel safe and friendly. Nobody wants their contributions rejected for no reason. Mechanical deletion and explanation is so much easier. How does Wikipedia resolve this kind of disputes in a way that prevents such accidental entrenching (and, generally and ultimately, bureaucratization)? I guess somebody he trusts might explain to him that my intentions were friendly? I left him a message on his talk page, but he still seems to be certain I'm into games. Who takes responsibility for such incidents? 79.115.14.74 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is a standard organization for disambiguation pages. You want to use a non-standard arrangement. My only "problem" with this is that you have not established consensus for this. As others have suggested, if you think virtual reality is the primary topic, then propose moving VR to VR (disambiguation) so VR can redirect to the virtual reality article. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Then he is exaggerating/overreacting: I didn't "think virtual reality is the primary topic". I didn't want to turn this whole page into a VR entry (redirect). I don't need to consider virtual reality the main topic just to make virtual reality more visible because many people expect to find it more easily. What are your reasons to believe MOS:DABORDER does not apply to virtual reality? ("In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below". Actually please do read the rest of this talk page.) 79.115.14.74 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I just realized it was you. I do appreciate what you just suggested. What I'm saying is it may not be necessary, at least not yet, to go as far as to redirect VR to virtual reality. And, since my request is actually more modest than the one that required your rightful intervention, please do allow me to un-revert. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I got your latest gesture. Your bizarre new edit message proves that what confuses you so much is that you don't "understand" the distinction I'm explaining. So let me translate (clarify) it for you: my edit does NOT require any consensus. There is no such thing as a non-standard arrangement. You just made it up for the sake of this argument in order to create an artificial distinction; a diversion to keep ignoring the truly relevant distinction, which we have mentioned on this talk page. (Now, between us, even if your "concept" had existed, which, again, is not true, rule-bullying is less useful to Wikipedia than an honest contribution that increases quality. You're fighting for a petty cause. Plus my edit is the better consensus-waiting default anyway. You could have shown some... generosity.) The bottom line is, you can't manipulate me to suspect what you are doing is hiding behind an infantile technicality you made up because of your embarrassment. You keep refusing to mention your confusion (you keep refusing to acknowledge that you mistakenly thought I essentially wanted to turn this page into a virtual reality redirect), thus forcing me to talk about... you instead. I attack the person, you save face. Nice trick, but it's wearing thin: I'm beginning to lose expectations. So please reconsider. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You have quite an imagination regarding what you think I understand or or what my motivations are. MOS:DABINT doesn’t describe any variety of introductory line similar to what you propose. That is non-standard. The only cases on WP:MOSDAB similar to what you propose are instances of a primary topic or a primary topic redirect. As neither of those apply here and you aren’t interested in moving this page to create a primary topic redirect, what you propose is a non-standard introductory line. As such, it is incumbent on you to establish consensus. older ≠ wiser 10:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      • "You have quite an imagination regarding what you think I understand or or (sic) what my motivations are." This is precisely the position I predicted you wanted to bring me in. And you started milking it from your very first words. It seems you are not reading what people are saying on this talk page. You are not capable to focus on the details of the issue. Your loopholes and misapplied semantics can't hide your poor logic and your lack of ability to focus on the real topic. Don't expect quoting community rules to somehow magically help you make sense. If anything, what slowed us down and affected your analytical skills so much was the fact that you keep confusing rules with reasoning. Thinking in labels and prefabricates can get you out of touch, which is immediately apparent to fresh contributors that take no shit and that hate your answering machine blabber. Having said that, you finally attempted to make some sense. I can only commend that. I was beginning to think you were just trolling, as also suggested by your signature. Anyway, my edit is useful and it stays. Until consensus kills it. Which of course you know will never happen; you're just buying time. (See? I don't need to be imaginative. Some things just are obvious. VR, anyone?) 79.115.14.74 (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
        • To date no one has expressed support for your proposal. You can insult and move towards incivility at your own risk, but that doesn't change the facts that you are proposing something that is rather irregular. Other editors have challenged this and it is incumbent on you to establish consensus for your proposal. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
          • You keep invoking incivility but this does not get my compassion. As you probably noticed from the very beginning, I'm only interested in facts. We're not here to comfort or appease each other, but to apply the correct rules. It is our duty to risk discouraging new editors if this saves a page from misleading or confusing information. So no, I refuse your veiled apology. Just get your facts right. If civility or attitude matter to you so much, reread my first two messages (including the one on your page) and stop there. (1) You state that other editors have challenged this. Please name two of them. Oh, your plural was weasel wording? All right, name one other than yourself. (2) To date no one has expressed support for your proposal. Another fake fact. Let me try this again: read the talk page. (3) [I]t is incumbent on you to establish consensus for your proposal. Again, I'm NOT proposing what you love to think I'm proposing. You misunderstand and misapply the rules. It's not called a "proposal". It's called an "edit".
          • This is a straw man. You're making it big in order to obfuscate the fact that you trapped us both in such a ridiculously frivolous argument. I did notice that we've now evolved from the fakely official "non-standard arrangement" to "rather irregular". Cute, but, as I said, I'm not interested in your veiled apology. I need the unrevert. I once offered you the chance of a friendly way out at the beginning. No, TWICE. Now it's time for you to learn your lesson just as coldly and robotically as you wanted me to learn yours. Indeed, because of editors using such answering machine tactics, Wikipedia can discourage fresh contributors. It grows old. Rigidity without the rigor means senility. Your rigid janitoring is not a joke to me. I can't just roll my eyes and ignore you (like your colleagues are doing right now instead of banning me already).
          • If my incivility at the end affected you negatively so much more than my civility at the beginning affected you positively, you're not as fair a person as you like to believe you are. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
            • You seem to be the one who is confused. I'm not looking for your compassion nor did I make any apology(veiled or otherwise). As for editors who challenged your edits, there is myself and Nick Number. There was some confusion in the discussion above as to whether MOS:DABPRIMARY is applicable here, but that is beside the point as none of the participants above Nick Number, Station1, and Shhhnotsoloud express support for your edits. All three suggest that if virtual reality is the primary topic for VR, there should be a move discussion to establish if there is consensus for that position. None supported the non-standard sort of edits you propose. As for the rest of your rant, I think it speaks for itself as to what you are (hint: it rhymes with hole). older ≠ wiser 18:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
              • The senility bit had nothing to do with you. Sorry about the ambiguity. It was about Wikipedia. Wikipedia can suffer from senility because of frivolous or nag edits. And, if you read the talk page just a little more analytically, you can understand why your "primary topic" preoccupation, which other editors on this page or me do not share, is just a (probably accidental) red herring.
              • Because I can now see that you honestly misread their comments on this page, I'll do the analysis for you. In his first message, NickNumber says I tend to disagree [that virtual reality] should be listed in the lead per MOS:DABPRIMARY., to which Station1 says That seems like a useful change. Technically, MOS:DABPRIMARY doesn't apply..., to which NickNumber replies "You're correct; I misstated the application of the guideline.", which means "right, I now have no reason to tend to disagree that virtual reality should be listed in the lead" OR even "You're correct that, since it's not a rename proposal after all, it's a useful edit".
              • Either way, three things are certain: (1) at least one of them agrees to my edit and (2) none of them disagreed to my edit after their brief exchange. (3) You're the only one left with the confusion their brief exchange fixed.
              • However, me winning this argument is not the point. The point is I may be visibly an asshole, but you can be an asshole by being curt and disrespectful to new editors, which does not promote collaboration. I am not in the position of teaching you a lesson, except as a victim of your curtness and disregard for my two olive branches. You just don't get to summarily delete honest contributions with broken-record five-word notices.
              • But the truly important point is you're a decent person and an honest misread can often happen to us all. My lesson is not for little assholes like us, that make mistakes and then apologize, but for those big assholes that go broken record AND also happen to be right, which they think magically validates their curtness and arrogance. Visitors feel wronged or dumb. Some never come back, except as readers. Do you feel me? 79.115.14.74 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
                • You make a lot of assumptions about what you think other people meant in what they wrote. Despite what you claim about what you think they meant, I don’t see that any other editor expressed support for your edits without making a lot of assumptions and tenuous implications. Speaking of broken records, I really don’t get what you think you’re trying to accomplish with your endless chiding. It comes across as truly bizarre. And the rhyming word I meant was not a**hole, although if you feel that is an appropriate self-referential epithet for yourself, what can I say? The term I was thinking of goes tr****. I honestly don’t care all that greatly about the specifics of this particular page. My objection has always been that you want to have a non-standard introductory line, but have not made much of a case for it and to date no one has explicitly expressed any support for your edits. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
                  • Your understanding of the situation and of my messages is incomplete. I don't judge you for that. My messages turned you inside-out only because I assumed you were pretending you did not understand. Since that is not the case, my messages should not apply to you. You know better. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
                  • Some extra detachment helped me realize that I may have been unnecessarily rough to you. Sorry for that. Actually, if anything, I hate "winning". I hate win-lose games. And please take this as a friendly disclaimer, NOT a consolation note. Just because I effectively "got what I requested" and I "won the argument", as an immature observer would frame it, doesn't mean I have a sense of gratification that we can't both share. You were just doing your job. We both acted in good faith and this is all that matters. There are no losers and the winner is Wikipedia. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We're all here to improve WP, so I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but it's often useful to reread WP:NPA and WP:3RR every once in a while. I do. As to VR, I agree with the opinion that using the recommended MOS:DABPRIMARY opening line is non-standard on a page like this. I also agree that "VR" almost certainly most often refers to virtual reality, which can be seen by googling "VR" or comparing pageviews of virtual reality to some of the other topics on the dab page, but it might not rise to the level of an obvious WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT requiring a page move. I do think it is useful to have the topic that large numbers of people are probably seeking near the top of the page, per MOS:DABORDER. The best way to meet both goals, imo, is to move virtual reality to the first entry on the dab page (under "Arts, entertainment and education", since virtual reality is most often used for those purposes), but not the introductory line. So that's what I'll do, with the sincere hope that that may be satisfactory to everyone. Station1 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)