Talk:Decision-making

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alinamartell579 (article contribs).

Requested move 28 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus DrStrauss talk 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Decision-making → Decision making – "Decision-making" looks like a mistake to some people (see above), and "Decision making" seems to have a majority on Google Scholar John V John (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: That it "looks like a mistake to some people" is insufficient rationale for renaming the article, and Google Scholar searches do not distinguish between "decision-making" and "decision making" so I don't see how Google Scholar is relevant. As I noted above in my comment above from 14 September 2016, my New Oxford American Dictionary lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun, and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. As can be seen at Special:WhatLinksHere/Decision-making, within Wikipedia mainspace, currently 395 articles link to the unhyphenated form and 427 articles link to the hyphenated form, so there is no clear preference for the unhyphenated form; in fact, the majority of articles link to the hyphenated form. My opposition does not imply that I personally prefer the hyphenated form, only that insufficient rationale has been presented for the requested move. Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Regarding Google Scholar, I just counted occurrences of "decision-making" not "decision making" in a search for that term, and came up with about 15 of the first 50. John V John (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that include uses as an adjective? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just struck my opposing vote, based on the additional evidence provided. See my comment below. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point about adjectival uses, I make it 12 out of 43 with the hyphen, discounting those. John V John (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:NOUN. Hyphenation is ordinarily used to create compound modifiers, not compound gerunds (see MOS:HYPHEN). The current form appears to be an adjective (e.g., part of the phrase "decision-making process"). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I don't see anything in WP:NOUN and MOS:HYPHEN that would justify renaming the article. In fact, MOS:HYPHEN says: "Consult a good dictionary", and as I noted above, the New Oxford American Dictionary lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. Biogeographist (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To explain my comment, the reason I cited MOS:HYPHEN is to show that it says that hyphenation is typically done to create a compound modifier (rather than a compound noun), and the reason I cited WP:NOUN was to assert that since the hyphenated term appears to be a modifier rather than a noun, the article should be renamed with a form that is (at least more clearly) indicating usage as a noun. I do not dispute that knowledgeable people sometimes use hyphenation to form compound nouns, although that seems to be a practice that is generally avoided.

I note that the above comment about the number of Wikipedia articles that link to the hyphenated-vs.-unhyphenated form fails to distinguish between when the link is from an adjective usage and when it is from a noun usage (and when it is from a mere listing of related articles). Checking the first few such links, I find that many of the hyphenated links are due to the title being linked in Template:Systems engineering, Template:Management, and "See also" sections, rather than reflecting actual usage in running text. In such uses, the link may just indicate inertia from the form of the current title. Where the hyphenated link appears in running text, I see that the links in Benjamin Franklin, Alcohol intoxication, and Higher education are from adjective uses (whereas Cognitive science, Evidence-based medicine, Garbage in, garbage out, Herbert A. Simon, and Nervous system are using the term as a noun).

From this, I conclude that many of the links to the hyphenated form cannot be interpreted as evidence that the phrase is hyphenated nearly as often on Wikipedia (when used as a noun in running text) as the prior remark would appear to indicate. In fact, since the unhyphenated form would very seldom be used as an adjective, it appears to me that the vast majority of noun links in running text on Wikipedia do not use a hyphen.

—BarrelProof (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Thanks for the additional information. My personal preference is for the unhyphenated form (as a noun), and the additional evidence and argumentation does begin to provide better support for renaming the article to that form, but there is still the troubling fact that the dictionary I regularly use, the New Oxford American Dictionary, lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun, and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. However, the dictionary wouldn't convince me to use the hyphenated form in my own writing, so why should I use it as justification for not changing the title of this article? I've just convinced myself to strike my vote. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Having closed the RM, moved the page, and performing post-move cleanup, I'm starting to have second thoughts about this RM: first, the article uniformly used the hyphenated form, as well as many references therein. Second, now we have a WP:CONSISTENCY issue with Group decision-making, Category:Decision-making and several articles therein. Perhaps this should have required a broader input, and perhaps a note at WP:PSYCHOLOGY. It seems the scope of this change has not been foreseen well, and I'm reluctant to carry it on; in hindsight, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. So, I'm reverting my close and move, and I'll relist the discussion. No such user (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps User:John V John, who requested the move, would like to consider invoking a requested move of "Group decision-making, Category:Decision-making and several articles therein", following up on the previous comment by User:No such user? If not, the inaction would seem to implicitly support the status quo, per WP:CONSISTENCY. Biogeographist (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The rationale makes little sense to me. Also, the argument that the version with a hyphen 'looks less intuitive' is just absurd. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Looks like a mistake to some people is not a rationale. The current wording is grammatically accurate. Some things are just correct and others are dumbing down. This proposal is unfortunately in the latter category. Mere weighing of numbers of usages on google (scholar) doesn't make the argument. That's apart from the massive knock-on dumbings-down that will be required for consistency. .Zymurgy (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia article chart

i dont understand why there should be a chart on creating an article in wikipedia in an article about decision making — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck1609 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What is going on – sock puppetry?

I notice an abundance of single-purpose accounts that have each been making a small number of edits to this article. In the cases when multiple edits have been made by the same account, they were typically all within about one hour of each other – as if someone created an account and then abandoned it after a single brief edit session. This may indicate sock puppetry to promote some particular agenda or point of view. There has also been some ordinary vandalism, but that's not what I'm talking about. Many of the edits of these apparently different users seem to be similar and possibly cooperative. Many of them are related to the idea of using "tacit knowledge" or "gut feelings" in decision-making. The edits don't seem to be outright vandalism, and might even be intended as constructive. This doesn't appear to be related to the declared Spring 2018 course assignment. Here are some examples:

• Ansku193 made one edit of this article and no other edits (13 November 2018).
• Ernokajander made two edits of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
• Ebaguet made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
• JariKuu18 made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
• AtteYM made one edit of this article and no other edits (11 November 2018).
• Sultsus made two edits of this article and no other edits (2 November 2018).
• Benfshr made one edit of this article and no other edits (29 October 2018).
• Goh km made one edit of this article and no other edits (20 October 2018).
• Nagendra103 made one edit of this article and no other edits (30 August 2018).
• Ramo 2266 made one edit of this article and no other edits (12 April 2017).
• Mdiane24 made nine edits of this article and no other edits (20 March 2017).
• Mosesbasseyibiang made one edit of this article and no other edits (29 November 2016).
• TomMcNamee made one edit of this article and no other edits (21 June 2015).

Aside from these most obvious examples, there are a number of other accounts and IP addresses that have edited this article and relatively few others. Until this edit of July 2015 (by Biogeographist, which is not an SPA account, and indeed seems like a very helpful triple-barnstar editor), there was no mention of "tacit knowledge" in the article – only "tacit assumptions".

—BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's peculiar alright. Usually one would expect something like this for promotion or pushing of contentious content, which doesn't seem to be the case here. In fact, what with the innocuous character of these edits, the approach strikes me as distinct overkill :p I do get a class project vibe though - maybe everyone has been told to "as homework, make one edit to this article" - pretty useless way to go about it... Does the recent turn towards tacit etcetera strike you as undue? Can't quite tell myself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I watch this article, and I had noticed the sudden flurry of edits. I had been waiting for the activity to subside before surveying the damage, which I haven't yet surveyed, so I can't yet provide any hypotheses about what happened but I agree it is unusual. I remember thinking that it looked like students. Thanks to BarrelProof for the notification. Biogeographist (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Organization of sections

User:Flagrant hysterical curious recently changed the order of sections in this article without explanation, and it doesn't seem to me that the new organization is any more rational than the previous organization, but the previous organization didn't have an obvious rationale either. This article still faces the issues mentioned years ago at Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2012 § This article is a jumble. Can anyone propose a better organization of this article? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)