![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
please revert and reopen. Closure by non-admin expressing "opinion" is a super-vote. This could/should have been relisted to let other train and Poland editors take a longer look. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed the word “opinion“ to “advice from here“. Does that help? –– В²C ☎ 16:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.In other words, my statement reflected the same purpose as the notice: anyone who thinks the article is notable should find the sources to prove it. It takes some pretty serious confirmation bias to find fault in a closer pointing this out in the closing statement. For the 3rd time, if you're confident that this was an improper close, take it to MRV. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive and harassing me. -- В²C ☎ 20:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the current title Proteza koniecpolska is bad, which cries out for the page to be moved somewhere else. It's not recognizable in English. The RM should be held open until a suitable new title emerges, especially with participation this thin. There is an identically-titled article pl:Proteza koniecpolska in Polish. Using Google translate, I'd guess a good English title might be Warsaw– Wrocław high speed rail line renovation ("prosthesis" is probably trying to say "renovation"). We do have bilingual Wikipedians who might be able to help; one of them is on the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. As this has now been nominated for deletion, it would be a terrible waste of editor time to litigate this at Move Review. Move review should be saved for more controversial decisions where there has been extensive discussion and disagreement, it shouldn't be used for relatively trivial matters like this. We don't need English-language sources to demonstrate notability; foreign-language reliable sources may be translated. A high-speed rail link between two major Polish cities seems notable to me. @ SmokeyJoe: @ In ictu oculi: I wouldn't press the matter too much here. After he says "go to MR", I would just open a new RM right below the one he closed, proposing to move to an acceptable English-language title, or if you're unsure of the best title, just make it an open-ended (?) request. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Born2cycle — I just wanted to follow up here on something in particular you'd posted at the most recent ANI discussion. You suggest in multiple places [1] [2] [3] that those who express concern about your behavior do so just because they disagree with you on other matters, or because they have some bias against you. I recall that this is something you've also asserted in previous discussions. I felt I needed to clarify this point specifically with you:
You yourself have pledged to improve some of the same behaviors that other editors are raising; why then do you assert that those who voice similar concerns are not doing so honestly? One of your pledges was to be more receptive to feedback on your behavior; another was to welcome and encourage input on how to improve; another was to accept that the mere fact that you're not violating the letter of any policies or guidelines doesn't mean there's no problem to address.
As noted at the ANI, your long-term behaviors (primarily in RMs) have been the subject of a remarkable number of discussions and disputes over a very long period, with concerns expressed or echoed by a great number of different editors past and present. The suggestion that it's all a personally-motivated campaign against you seems disingenuous and unsupported by the evidence — and out of step with your pledge. Do you understand that the long-term behaviors which have been raised over many years, and the repeated debates that they regularly trigger, are not beneficial for the project? And that it's appropriate for members of the community to be concerned about that? ╠╣uw [ talk 11:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
There are 2 new proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle) (and the section directly below). I don't think they will be successful since the previous (lesser) proposal failed but I'm just letting you know as you haven't commented there. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
When I unblocked you I suggested that you follow your PROPOSAL: 'what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.
' As you have commented at
Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Yoghurt Principle three times, that's it. No more, and take this a more than just a suggestion. The community would like to see you "self-moderate" more than you have been lately.
wbm1058 (
talk)
22:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
And you went over the limit at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Objective opinions, please – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the impolite edit summary, I was wondering how you found that article within 12 hours of its creation? wbm1058 ( talk) 04:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Take it easy on Julián Castro. You're coming across a bit too heavy-handed. wbm1058 ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit suspicious. Look at the time stamps of the four opposes that appeared in a row:
Two 8 minute gaps then a 9 minute gap. Very strange coincidence. — В²C ☎ 07:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So you feel as you stated above that sometimes you are railroaded when your behavior is no different the behavior that others get away with. Here is an example of where you have shown outlier behavior.
We ask editors to use {{ subst:requested move}} to submit RMs for a reason. That template calls a module that does a bunch of error-checking for bad or missing parameters, syntax or template placement to ensure that the syntax of the RM is formatted in the standard way that the bot expects to find it. It's frustrating when editors use the /dated template directly, or incorrectly refactor RMs after-the-fact. I keep needing to make changes to the bot so it handles these refactorings in a more optimal way, as more unexpected refactorings happen.
When editors make these kinds of mistakes who I don't recognize to be frequent RM participants, I just quietly fix the error and advise them to please do it the right way next time. I realize there are a lot of instructions and rules to follow, and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be perfect the first time they submit a RM. When a lot of people keep making the same mistake, I don't view it as their problem – I view it as a system problem calling for changes to make the process more intuitive. But I expect the RM regulars to know better, and to not waste my time by making errors that I need to fix.
So when
MelanieN, a highly-respected sysop, but not, AFAIK, a frequent RM-submitter,
enters a malformed request, I simply
FIX it, with an edit summary advising to use the right template next time. No big deal. How I fix it is a bit of a trade secret, but it's something anyone can do if they know what they're doing. It would be nice to have more help fixing these malformed requests because I can't always be patrolling for them. I kind of expect anyone who positions themselves as a sort of RM expert and hall monitor to be able to do this. The secret is to not trust yourself to be able to manually refactor the request, but rather to use {{
subst:RM}} to fix the syntax, taking advantage of its built-in error checking. |header=n
and |sign=n
are special parameters used to do this. Just edit the existing request to re-do it this way, and if the diff looks good in show-preview, save the change.
When you made
THIS edit to refactor another editor's request, "adding explicity move of the dab page to this proposal which was originally only implied
", you broke the syntax. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here.
Julián Castro is a
WP:TWODAB I recently created after I closed
Talk:Julián Castro (Venezuelan politician)#Requested move 12 January 2019. That move needed to happen first, to clear out the primary-topic links before the other article could be moved to PT status.
HERE's my edit history for this disambiguaiton work. While working through those, I found a few where
articles refering to the American had been linking to the Venezuelan. Editors closing RMs like this really should be expected to do at least some of this disambiguation work after they close them, so as to "share the load" with the editors over at
WP:DPL. Your closing statement "this is messy because of the move of the Venezuelan president during this discussion
" seems confusing to me. We couldn't exactly wait until deciding to make the American PT to move the Venezuelan off PT. The there is a clear consensus that the Venezelan is not primary; there is not an equally clear consensus yet that the American is. So closing out the Venezulan RM helped to focus the PT debate in one place, on the American's RM. Your close, effectively slamming the door on the move to
Julián Castro (American politician), switched the bias towards making him the PT. Now whoever ultimately closes this really needs to review the opinions in both discussions (three discussions actually, as views on this were also expressed in the Venezuelan's RM). I'm not sure how much, if any benefit was gained by refactoring this. If it's decided that he is not PT, then the page will still need to move to
Julián Castro (American politician), despite your close that said there was "clearly no consensus" to move to that title.
Julian Castro should ultimately redirect to
Julián Castro (or vice versa), regardless of whether there is a PT or not; targeting different places based on a mere difference in diacritics is really silly and I'm surprised it's been allowed to go on for this long.
Another editor made a manual edit trying to fix your refactoring at 22:24, 24 January 2019; minutes later the bot, which was not expecting that, made this edit at 22:30, 24 January 2019. After this spurious bot notice came to my attention, I needed to debug the issue and subsequently make a patch to the code in order to stop the bot from edit-warring over removal of its misplaced message.
None of this would have been necessary if you hadn't decided that moving the two-dab to (disambiguation) was necessary. The two-dab doesn't really need to be moved; the closing administrator may simply move over the top of it and delete it. Or they could move it to the (disambiguation) title, and then delete it there. This is not such a big deal that you needed to refactor the request over it. If the disambiguation page was a long-standing page with several items on it, that would be a different matter. But this is just a possibly temporary dab I created to help me do the necessary disambiguation work.
So why did my bot get confused? It expects |current1=
to be the page whose talk is hosting the discussion. You made |current1=
the disambiguation page. In that scenario, the bot assumes that the page hosting the discussion is not part of the move request. Hence, I suppose, when it found that it was indeed part of the move request after all, the bot needed to notify the page hosting the RM that the page was part of the proposed move after all. Or something like that. My head and my code are spinning now, as I just patched it without fully comprehending the mechanism by which it was invoked. In essence, you made the trivial matter of what to do with my likely temporary dab the focus of the move discussion, with what to do with Castro's bio an afterthought.
So getting back to the matter of your "railroading". None of those other editors have disrupted the RM process and bot in this manner. I expect anyone acting as an RM expert and the process' hall monitor to actually have some expertise in the process, and not do things to disrupt it. That's something maybe I need to deal with the others doing, but not you. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
2) either eliminate the DAB page which is currently at Julián Castro (regarding it as unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER), or else move it to Julián Castro (disambiguation).-- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course the current1/current2 stuff. I should have caught that. So sorry.
To help prevent such errors in the future, I think somewhere we should document how to convert a single page RM to a multi-page move manually. I'll give it a stab.
When converting a single-page move to a multi-page move, follow this example. You will start with a single-page move that looks something like this:
{{requested move/dated|Current page}}
[[:Current page]] → {{no redirect|Other page}} – reasoning/sig/date
Say you want to add another move, moving "Other page" to "Other page (disambiguation)". Alter the above to this multiple format:
{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes|current1=Other page|new1=Other page (disambiguation)|current2=Current page|new2=Other page|}}
* [[:Other page]] → {{no redirect|Other page (disambiguation)}}
* [[:Current page]] → {{no redirect|Other page}} – reasoning/sig/date
Is that correct? -- В²C ☎ 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
|header=n
if you want to keep the existing section header rather than paste over it, and |sign=n
if you're repairing someone else's request, to keep their signature and not add your own. The other editor's signature will be at the end of the |reason=
field, and becomes a part of that parameter. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
21:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You may want to review your comment [5] because stonewalling and bludgeoning does not equates to willingness to discuss but opposite of it since it means exhausting patience of others. There is evidence of edit warring and basic lack of understanding of English. Hamster Sandwich had opposed but soon changed his initial "oppose" [6] and to say he sees no evidence when his 2nd comment shows otherwise would be misleading. Harmanprtjhj ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You wrote (19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)): "I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here."
*Comment I just want to point out that not only has nobody pointed out anything wrong with my activity in the list of all my recent RM activity above that Levivich has compiled so helpfully, but this AN/I was started due to my terse reaction to an WP:INVOLVED admin [7] [8] placing a warning on my talk page [9]. That doesn't excuse my reaction (referring to him as a "jerk") [10], but I think it helps explain it. I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here. -- В²C ☎ 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Born2cycle, I have reviewed the ANI thread ( corrected link -- В²C ☎ 18:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)) relating to you. As you are aware, a large consensus of participants at the ANI thread disapproved of your actions in discussions, although there was no consensus for any specific sanction against your editing privileges. I have closed it with the following outcome: "Born2cycle is warned that the community has found his commenting in discussions excessive and disruptive, and that future similar behavior may result in sanctions." If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh for heavens sake! B2C, I haven’t chimed in on any of numerous recent times when you have been accused of badgering and IDHT. In fact the last time I pointed out how disruptive you can be at talk pages was 2013. [15] But you haven’t changed a bit, and here you are, proving it yet again: badgering L235 about his close, which DID reflect the consensus of the discussion there, and continuing to IDHT insist that you don’t understand or don’t agree with the conclusion. You have gotten warning after warning - going back at least as far as 2012, when you were warned at ArbCom that your “contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors” [16]. That warning didn’t help; nothing has helped. In spite of all the warnings you haven’t changed a bit. Yes, in this case you once again got away with a warning, which you will once again ignore. I know you will never change. I am only commenting here because Kevin is a gentle and courteous person, who will try to reply patiently to your questions - and I want him to realize that trying to explain anything like this to you or respond to you is a hopeless quest, a bottomless pit, and the only possible way out is to disengage. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that it isn't one particular edit, so nobody is able to point to one edit or discussion as something that stands out as being obviously problematic. I think it mostly boils down to (a) a certain tenacious approach you have in discussions combined with (b) a slightly abrasive style. As evidence of (b), consider (i) what you apologized to me for recently and (ii) this edit summary (You surely know what DS alerts are for). These two in combination are pissing people off. Hope that helps, ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok you know that stuff above you were warned about? You're doing it again in relation to
What Men Want. --
Netoholic
@
22:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So I don't really understand article titling conventions. Was hoping you could chime in on a few that confuse me: Townhouse, Terraced house (two different names for the same thing, so they're forks IMO), Rowhouse (the same thing but only in a certain part of the US, yet it's a redirect to the British Terraced house instead of the American Townhouse), but note Townhouse (Great Britain) (not the same thing, but part of the equation somehow). Note for comparison Flat (housing) is a redirect to Apartment. What's to be done about Townhouse and Terraced house in your opinion (if anything)? And what about Jackscrew and Acrow prop? Thanks! Leviv ich 04:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C
Please could you reList the request at Park Street station? I missed the debate, having already opposed the move at User talk:Cuchullain. There also doesn't seem to be a clearcut consensus for a complete reversal of primary topics. It would be normal to have a disambiguation page in this scenario. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 07:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for closing RMs. You seem to be doing ok.
RE: Talk:The_Independent_Group#Requested_move_19_February_2019. Was that “no consensus” or “consensus to not move”? Refer Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Three_possible_outcomes. Or somewhere between? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
You moved a page to MMR-autism myth. with a hyphen and a period at the end. Please be more careful when moving pages. There also is no consensus on what title the page should be moved to, but you moved it just to move it? Natureium ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Guy (
Help!)
09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose that you do not close any discussion or move any page for an indefinite period of time. cygnis insignis 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.
If anyone gives me good reason on my talk page to revert this close and reopen, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm hoping everyone agrees this is the most reasonable choice[17]
That seems to make myth a clear winner, right?[18] So I was quite surprised by your reaction since the title I chose was the myth one listed there. -- В²C ☎ 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that "MMR vaccine and autism myth", "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory", and "MMR vaccine and autism hoax" all have broader support than the current name, wouldn't it be prudent to move it to one of those rather than leave it here? Even if discussion continues between those three, right now it seems to have defaulted to one of the least popular names per the above discussions. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Philosophically, I agree, but all of those also include a value judgment in the title and that is likely to be controversial for antivax-sympathetic editors - the discussion above may well result in consensus for one of these, but this RM is premature as no resolution has been found yet. Guy ( Help!) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle: Having noticed the ( most) recent move-related incident related to you at ANI, I felt I should come here to suggest that you refrain from performing move request closures, but I see that that discussion has already been started above by other editors — a fact that reinforces my belief that this is something you should consider seriously. By this point the reasons should be clear, but in case they're not, I'll describe a couple as I see them:
To be clear, I'm not saying that you cannot act impartially. I'm saying that someone who's principally dedicated themselves to influencing title policy and practice across Wikipedia will likely not appear neutral regarding moves and titling in general — and per the instructions, "even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding."
Put simply, and based on the evidence, I think it would be better both for you and for the community if you refrained from closing discussions in general, and move discussions in particular. I would ask that you please do so. ╠╣uw [ talk 10:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The other part is that any editor who's recently been ANI'ed and blocked for behavior relating to move requests is liable (rightly or wrongly) to be a source of unnecessary drama when he starts closing move requests. To me that seems fairly self-evident: would you agree?
It's great for an editor to want to close discussions, but our instructions seem clear that doing so is not an absolute right, and that if there's a question about a potential closer being appropriate for the role, then "there is no harm in erring on the side of caution."
Given that multiple editors are now suggesting exactly that, I would ask you to reconsider, and to please refrain from performing move closures.
╠╣uw [
talk
18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
╠╣uw [
talk
14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep a public log of closes and moves. Kind of like the diff bomb I posted to ANI last month but with more detail. Note which closes were questioned, re-opened, etc. You might spend some time back-filling the log, maybe to the beginning of Feb or the beginning of 2019. When people come here to complain that you're not doing a good job overall or that you're out of step with consensus, you can point them to the page. Hard data will speak the loudest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you asked for a ping, could you please respond at Talk:Democratic Action Party (disambiguation)? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please try to avoid relisting move requests that you are also supporting or opposing. It can make closes more complicated than necessary because it basically acts as a supervote. Relisting is supposed to be an action taken by a possible closer (i.e. an uninvolved editor) who declines to close the discussion. I know you don't usually do this, but it seems to have happened at least three times in the last week. We could get into the weeds about whether closers can ever be fully objective, but it would be easier just to let others relist. Dekimasu よ! 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Dekimasu and SmokeyJoe, thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I’m honored! I want to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Relisting_and_participating which notes that there is “no consensus” about whether involved editors can or should relist, but when it’s done the relister should be prepared to explain. And here we are!
So, except in rare cases where there is some kind of urgency to resolve the RM in question, I see no harm in relisting by anyone for any reason. If a discussion is elapsed and it looks like there is no clear consensus and discussion is ongoing, I’m apt to relist, whether I throw in my two cents or not, and I have no objection to anyone else doing the same. That’s where I stand, but I’m open to be persuaded otherwise. — В²C ☎ 05:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't trying in particular to make a comment about policy–and I don't think I have ever argued with you much, or at all, about RMs. I know what WP:RM says about participation and relisting ("no consensus forbidding" participation and relisting), but I was still making a request to you that you avoid doing it. RM also says "best left to... editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion" which implies that the editor in question was capable of closing the discussion–i.e. hadn't participated at the time. From time to time I have seen editors !vote a few days after relisting a sparsely attended discussion, or something like that. But I don't think I have ever seen relisting and a !vote in the same comment from an experienced editor; and we definitely don't want to see that sort of practice spread to unexperienced editors relisting their own requests, etc. Something like the relisting at Talk:Climate change looks pretty clearly like recognition that the opinion you expressed and your "closer" reading of the expired discussion don't match up. Why not, then, leave it to someone else to judge whether your input has changed the course of the discussion such that relisting would be useful?
As a separate issue, I know that there is a difference of philosophy among RM participants as to whether "no consensus" closes are a bad thing. There is such a thing as a discussion that trends toward an even split, on policy and guidelines and numerical support, and in such cases there is a clear outcome that is neither "consensus to move" nor "consensus not to move". "No consensus" doesn't usually mean keeping the discussion open longer would result in a consensus, and I think keeping a clear "no consensus" discussion open longer is a net negative not because there will be more entries in the backlog, but because editors have a finite amount of energy for RM participation. Closing discussions that have a clear lack of consensus either way allows discussions that would benefit from further participation to be more prominent on the RM page. Dekimasu よ! 14:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I still don't remember this, but you are quite correct. Based on what it says, sounds like I did a relisting for the first time then. I'm pretty sure that was my last one for years. User_talk:Born2cycle/Archive_8#Relisting_of_Talk:Journey_Through_the_Decade#Requested_move_04_August_2013. -- В²C ☎ 00:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Alcatraz_Citadel#Requested_move_12_February_2019 just got relisted a third time. Unusual? Before the third relist it had only one participant (yours truly) besides the nom. Now it already has a second participant and it's starting to look like it will achieve consensus. What if it hadn't been relisted but had been closed as no consensus? How is that better? Or what if an involved editor, the nom or myself, had relisted? What would have been so bad about that? -- В²C ☎ 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Above I opined: While there will always be exceptions, there is no reason to have rules with explicit built-in ambiguities, like the juxtaposed likelihood of being sought and historical significance criteria in primary topic, where editors are asked to "balance" the two when they are in conflict, with no additional guidance on how to do that. Some think likelihood is more important, others think historical significance, and the way these discussions go largely depends on who happens to weigh in. That's not a system. That's designing for chaos.
There is a great example of this going on at Talk:Ghost_World_(film)#Requested_move_7_March_2019. The nom presented a strong argument that the film is primary based on both PT criteria. But an other editor has countered that the original comic is more historically significant, and therefore should remain primary. Who's right? There is no way to know for sure, because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not give us guidance for these situations. However it turns out, it will mostly depend on the proclivities and whims of whoever happens to show up. If this RM was opened a month earlier or a month later, the difference in the makeup of participants is sufficiently likely to make it go the other way. We can do better. We should do better. -- В²C ☎ 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think that the album is the "one and only" subject called "Unlikely" but you don't think that that's the case with Freston? As far as I can see both Probability and Likelihood function are reasonable PRIMARYREDIRECT contenders for "Unlikely" but I don't see that for "Freston" since there is no other topic called just "Freston" even though there are other places and people that are partly called that, none are called just "Freston" (since we don't have an encyclopedia article on the surname) or well known enough to be likely to be searched for with "Freston". Surely you're point here about not sending readers onto an obscure village would easily apply to not sending readers onto an obscure album when we have coverage of "Unlikely" at Probability and Likelihood function. Even if people are unlikely to look for those topic with "unlikely", its surely unlikely that they would be looking for Unlikely. With surnames yes I agree that its fine to take them into account (and other PTMs) if there are at least 2 full matches but if there isn't then we are wrongly implying that the term is ambiguous.
While with Ovens you argued that you argued that you didn't think that the cooker was primary for the plural but its just WP convention that articles are at the single form when WP NC could use the plural form (as noted here). Its clear in this case that an everyday noun that everyone knows is far far more likely to be searched and by far more notable than a village of 1,703 and a town of 219 even if it is at "Oven" not "Ovens". Note that the categories Category:Ovens, Commons:Category:Ovens are there and that while "Windows" redirects to the company both Category:Windows and Commons:Category:Windows are about the part of the building (though I did clear some images out of the Commons category intended for Microsoft). So yes being at a different title is a consideration (per WP:PLURALPT "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form...") but still should be considered.
Here (sorry to quote a discussion from years ago but it is relevant) you made a point about how we title v what is primary. But in this case it looks like nobody would expect the article on Tom to be at "Freston" while readers may expect to get info on probability and similar at "Unlikely" but the cooker could easily be expected to be at "Ovens".
At Settle, you argued that "All of the alleged three other uses are at appropriate non-disambiguated titles; none would be at Settle even if there were no other uses" but as noted further down the discussion there were miss links and that not everyone searching for the other uses (such as Settler) would know to search for that term. Again this would seem a good example of a term being ambiguous with a different title. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
no evidence that any other uses are commonly referred to as "settle", much less are likely to be searched for with that term.. That last part is what's most important to primary topic determination. In contrast, I argue somebody named Tom Freston is likely to be sought with just freston. I know I would. If I'm looking for an actor or author or ceo or bicyclist or whoever I'm searching for with a relatively unusual surname, I'm certainly not going to bother also entering their first name into the search box. I seriously doubt that's uncommon practice. -- В²C ☎ 21:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely means:
But the article Probability (and Likelihood function) are relevant to the meaning of "Unlikely" which unlike the above doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIC but actually WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Its possible for a topic usually considered "encyclopedic" such as Red to be put in a dictionary manor for example;
Red means:
I searched for Retroactive for example when looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#GeneralG5 and found Ex post facto law which was useful. By contrast I would never even think of entering Newton into the search box to find if I wasn't aware that such searches work since its obvious that a person will usually include their first name. Do you agree with my point about NOTDIC v primary topic? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C! User:Xain36 has been making a lot of edits in their very short time on Wikipedia, including opening and closing move requests. In my opinion, they don't have the necessary experience or judgement to be doing this. Can their enthusiasm be redirected to an area where they will do less damage? I've already butted heads with them, so I don't know the best way to go about this. Danielklein ( talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C. Lobbyist is not accurate, but agree that UK politics is not defined enough. Also in your comments you don't seem convinced that lobbyist is right. I suggest Anthony Browne (business). This is very similar to Simon Walker (business).
Beetlepin
Beetlepin ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
From MR: Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
—
В²C
☎
15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so should I present my position to B2C on this page? Or go back to the page in question? I'm unsure as the discussion is now closed but I didn't get to contribute to it. Beetlepin ( talk) 14:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C. I would like to further discuss your decision regarding the Broccolini title/article name. I would like to offer further evidence that "baby broccoli" is the industry term for this plant even though it is not a "baby". Whether this name makes sense is not the issue, the issue is what is this common name of this plant in the industry. I have attached links to seven different produce companies (nationally and internationally) who use different brand names for the product/vegetable, which they all call baby broccoli, along with other third party links referencing the generic name baby broccoli. Given this evidence, would you consider amending your closure of the request move discussion. I hope this is the right place to insert links. Please let me know if you do not see the links or this is incorrect forum for discussion. MWMDL ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Major Produce Companies
- Foxy Organic - https://www.foxy.com/what-we-grow/sweet-baby-broccoli - Lakeside Organic Gardens - http://www.lakesideorganic.com/vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/ - Markon - https://www.markon.com/produce-guide/broccoli-baby-sweet-mfc - Ocean Mist - https://www.oceanmist.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli - Green Giant Fresh - https://www.greengiantfresh.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli-pouch/ - Josie's Organics- https://josiesorganics.com/whole-vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/ - Bulmer Farms- http://bulmerfarms.com.au/baby-broccoli/ - Rugby Farms- https://www.rugbyfarm.com.au/produce/view/baby-broccoli/1
Third Party Reference to Baby Broccoli
Martha Stewart Recipe - https://www.marthastewart.com/329040/sauteed-baby-broccoli Primal Palate Recipe- https://www.primalpalate.com/paleo-recipe/roasted-baby-broccoli/ Williams Sonoma Recipe - https://www.williams-sonoma.com/recipe/baby-broccoli-with-garlic.html Food Network recipe- https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchen/baby-broccoli-with-oyster-sauce-recipe-2104091 Betty Crocker Recipe- https://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/garlic-baby-broccoli/a8dfad0c-6067-46b9-ae02-4b5823d59bd1 Bew York Times- https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1012936-fettuccine-with-braised-mushrooms-and-baby-broccoli
Note- NONE of these references call the product/vegetable Broccolini. It's all called baby broccoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWMDL ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Born2cycle! Regarding the move request at Talk:Dragon 2#Requested move 2 March 2019, I would challenge your finding of "not moved"; the discussion rather shows "no consensus". The outcome is the same, keep the existing title, but a lack of consensus would allow more flexibility for a future move. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and possibly an amendment to your close. — JFG talk 05:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings B2c. I am editing articles for the seven high schools in Arlington, Texas. A question has arisen regarding the article title for Arlington High School (Texas). The article titles for the other high schools in Arlington, Texas identify the school name followed by parenthetical "Arlington, Texas", e.g., Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) , Martin High School (Arlington, Texas) and Seguin High School (Arlington, Texas). But the article for Arlington High School is titled simply Arlington High School (Texas). Obviously, a title of "Arlington High School (Arlington, Texas)" would be consistent with titles used for other high schools in Arlington, Texas. However, the articles for other Arlington High Schools in other states use a parenthetical with the state name only, e.g., Arlington High School (California), Arlington High School (New York), etc. So the current title for Arlington High School is consistent with the usage in other states, but not with local schools. You can't be consistent with both usages. So how does one decide? In other words, should the article titles be consistent on the local level or on the national level? My view is that the title with the full (Arlington, Texas) is preferable, because high school names are more of a local interest than a state-to-state interest. Since you are a "article title specialist", I thought I would ask for your view before I initiated any changes. Krivak957 ( talk) 09:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 17 May 2019, you crossed the supervote line by adding your personal unjustified opinion that a new RM using ranked would be a good idea. There is no indication of a good reason to move from the status quo, there is an ugly history or s8milar RMs for that article, and Inhave explained to you at WT:RM why ranked voting is contrary to consensus decision making. Your inability to understand objections to your new ideas for algorithmic solutions is not my problem but yours. If you can’t understand, you should slow down on pushing theories, definitely not push them into your closing statements. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Calidum
18:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the "
Note:" lines at
User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤)
05:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fyi. Today's comedy:
User_talk:InvalidOS#Non_admin_closure_of_contentious_move_review —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤)
16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that there was no consensus in this case, I'd point out that the OP's proposal was mainly that "Time machine" should redirect to Time travel. The 2 users who supported the original proposal seem to only be that "Time machine" should redirect to Time travel rather than if the DAB page is at Time machine (disambiguation) or Time Machine. Netoholic's point would seem to have been addressed by me and others that a redirect to Time travel would do until/if we have a separate article at "Time machine". Aside from 1 user who stated that they agreed with Netoholic the other user who supported moving the DAB to Time Machine was me and I stated that the lower case title should indeed redirect to Time travel (the original proposal). The arguments about WP:DABNAME (the only other use of the lower case being only a WP:DABMENTION) and WP:DIFFCAPS (similar to Iron maiden) would surely say that there was consensus to make "Time machine" a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Time travel (without prejudice of a separate article being written there) and the DAB at Time Machine (upper case, which there doesn't seem to be opposition for). If anyone feels that the DAB should be at Time machine (disambiguation) then per WP:THREEOUTCOMES that proposal could be made at any time, thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you should revert your close, as you do not appear to recognize consistency as one of the criteria for selecting the name of a page, and that was one of the arguments presented. Furthermore, 1 (year), etc. was rejected as the name of the year 1, etc.; so consistency, again, suggests that 911 (year) should have been rejected. Furthermore, the move should have been deferred to allow Wikipedia:WikiProject Years some time to fix the templates. This move has too much collateral damage to be closed by a non-admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that you have an extensive interest in titles I'm wandering what you're opinion is with this RM having raised it here with no response.
Arguments in favour of the move:
Arguments against the move:
There was also a point that although there is an island called just " Shuna" the hatnote on the Loch Linnhe one would suffice per WP:SMALLDETAILS (there are other "Shuna"s so I'd just leave the Slate Islands one disambiguated instead of moving it to plain "Shuna").
Would you have supported these moves? How much basis in policy does the fact that a name is tautological have? There is even a list at List of tautological place names. Danna, Scotland/ Island of Danna and Stroma, Scotland/ Island of Stroma also have the same issue. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C! Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Morrone in case it helps; a similar situation. This Marie Claire profile is WP:SIGCOV (in my opinion) – mainstream international publication, author with byline, thousands of words, focused on the subject. These two [23] [24] might make the grade, except they were published at the same time (Aug 2019), so it doesn't demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage and will likely be discounted on WP:BLP1E grounds. NYT and CBS are first-rate sources, but those particular articles aren't SIGCOV of Carter, they're SIGCOV of something else that happen to mention Carter. A test I use is how many separate statements of fact can I cite to this source? If it's dozens of facts in one source, it's in-depth SIGCOV. If it's only two or three facts – even if it's a dozen mentions – then it's not SIGCOV. When I search for Carter's name without the name of her ex-husband or current girlfriend, I find very little in terms of coverage. You run into the WP:INHERITED argument: spouses and significant others may be all over the media, but you don't get a WP page just for being someone's husband or wife. In the Marrone AfD, I had to show SIGCOV from before she met Leo (which I found by searching on Google using the date limiting tools... before 2017 I think it was, and in Spanish to boot), to demonstrate notability. I'm not going to !vote in the Carter DRV (if I did, I would vote draftify based on the one GNG source I've seen so far, the Marie Claire profile), but thought this might help. If you have one or two other examples like the Marie Clarie profile, but from different time periods, that might convince DRV voters to RESTORE in that DRV, but if you don't, it could be refunded to draft until either you or someone else finds such sources, or new sources are written (which is very possible/likely, I think). (And I'd guess the original AfD closer would REFUND to draft on request.) Cheers! – Leviv ich 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop removing piped links, as requested by SmokeyJoe. Despite what Drovethrughosts said, [25] it is not harmless, and even they pointed out it is unnecessary and contrary to guidelines. Andrewa ( talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
[[redirect]]
→ [[target|redirect]]
). B2C's edits (at least the couple I looked at) are doing the opposite - replacing redundant piped links like [[The Americans (2013 TV series)|The Americans]]
with the simpler [[The Americans]]
. This seems like a desirable change according to the wording of
WP:NOTBROKEN itself: Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form., and also
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.See also WP:NOPIPE:
First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Colin M ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Her official Facebook page is this https://www.facebook.com/ketakikadamofficial/ And my friend Sydell has personally met Ketaki and the actress told her how much problems she faced for her verification of her instagram account when previously her account was me_ketaki_kadam on Instagram but because of verification problems she changed it to me_ketki_kadam but her real name is Ketaki . Please help her and get this problem fixed .IMDB has alo mispelled her name .Her real name is Ketaki it's because of this media articles that publish wrong names . Please try to understand Anu1999 ( talk) 11:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Copy/pasting discussion from User:Born2cycle#Bad_RM_decisions to here:
Your close at Talk:Friendly Fire#Requested move 22 August 2019 is not good. You have have locked jaw support of a rigid reading of WP:DIFFCAPS, and this discussion explicitly challenged the applicability of DIFFCAPS to this case. This makes you INVOLVED. It was also contentious, which makes the close a WP:BADNAC. You do not summarize the arguments but simply assert your own opinion. WP:Supervote. The interplay between written policy, changing consensus, and the role of discussion is something you are previously not been good at. You also neglect to declare in the close that you are a non admin closer, which is always bad form. Would you please revert you close and participate instead with a !vote. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could you revert your close here? I don't see a consensus, and the idea that "Friendly Fire" doesn't mean the same as "friendly fire" is clearly ridiculous, there's no strong reason for that move to have been moved when many people experienced with page-move policy disagreed. It should be no consensus. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, ...", so what really matters here, as several supporters pointed out, is the intent of a user when they bother to capitalize in the specific context of a Search for Friendly Fire on Wikipedia. Users who don't know WP Search is case sensitive won't bother to capitalize, especially if they're not looking for one of the uses with a proper name, and will get treated exactly as you want all users to be treated - taken to generic Friendly fire. But those who do bother to capitalize as Friendly Fire should be taken to the dab page to be one step closer to finding the article they're almost certainly seeking, rather than to the generic use they're almost certainly not seeking. The title/article configuration supported by a 2:1 ratio of participants complies with the explicitly stated purpose of DIFFCAPS much better than the status quo favored by the minority in opposition. So I hope you understand why I'm not persuaded to revert, especially by anyone who participated in opposition. -- В²C ☎ 20:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't vote in this RM, but FWIW, you might guess from my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51, that I support the move. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a comment, B2C: I see that you haven’t changed. You still like to characterize any opinion that disagrees with yours as “pointless, blatant, and illogical”, “plainly ridiculous”, “ridiculous”, “rationalizing”, “fantastic”. Look around that discussion, please; you will notice that nobody else uses that kind of language to ridicule other people’s positions. You have been scolded in the past, more than once, for intolerance toward other people’s opinions. Let’s try to keep it cordial and collaborative, shall we? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you just hold up for a bit? Edit conflict already wrecked a large update I'd made, and as I now try to add it section by section, I continue to hit edit conflict. I had started editing today prior to yourself, so please just wait a bit. I was finished until I hit your conflicting edits. Thank you. Sunny Clark ( talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Little ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Kolossus (disambigution) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kolossus (disambigution) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards 84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I found that you were involved in the early inclusion of surnames into what is now WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I am considering starting an RfC to deprecate such surname PRIMARYREDIRECTS and wanted your input. You can view my sandbox draft of the RfC proposal here. Every day, we see more and more surname PRIMARYREDIRECT WP:Requested moves, which now often devolve into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifications. I think, when one considers all the particulars related to biographical names, though, this practice probably isn't a good one in -any- case. Thanks for your time and thoughts. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder in Texas. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem with you're closes I'm pretty sure others will since you have previously had controversy with titles of royal people. You might have been better adding !votes instead? Anyway thankyou for you're participation in RMs. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I find it mildly annoying that you could not discern appeals to WP:CONSISTENT and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY in my !vote or anyone else's. Since nobody disputed the WP:PREDIRECT situation, COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC always seemed beside the point. That leaves CONCISE, which I believe was addressed. Given the first support at George III (and second at George IV) cited an essay by you, your close may have the appearance of a supervote. Srnec ( talk) 00:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
May I ask what is your reason for contesting this move? VR talk 02:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The spelling does have historical significance. It is the difference between the closely related languages of two countries that are at war. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
Please do not revert again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston § Requested move 10 February 2021. Hi В²C, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my RM? Thanks, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
In my patrols for problems I found this multiple-screwup of the move of Chesly Sullenberger ← (click that link). It is frustrating for me to find one incompetent "professional page mover" asking for and getting "help" from another incompetent professional page mover. You shouldn't need to be making typos on your simple page moves when closing one-move RMs, nor leaving overly terse edit summaries like "Per RM".
Look at the example RM templates at Wikipedia:Template index/Moving/Requested. Several of them including the first, which demonstrates the most common scenario, have a "direct move" link at the bottom right corner of the template. Click this link and your typo-free move will be initiated with a pre-filled edit summary that has a link back to the discussion. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 02:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Stranger's Recognition |
I don't know you; I'm nobody, and we've never met, and I have no grasp of etiquette in this unintuitive hell, but there's a button here that says I can send my regards, and a good part of me says you deserve some appreciation. Sunberreiy ( talk) 11:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC) |
Why don't you think that the Chinese whispers move shouldn't have been reverted? Surely the oppose side made the stronger case to keep it at this title namely that "Chinese whispers" is 30% more common that the other 2 names combined in NGrams and even if it wasn't WP:NATURAL is an effective tie breaker. Applying the WP:TITLECHANGES and the yogurt principle, firstly is there a good reason to change this controversial title? No there isn't as per the evidence presented. Secondly if the article was at "Telephone (game)" already would there be a reason to change it? Yes there would again because the evidence and ATDAB support "Chinese whispers". Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
While the nomination and BD2412 were probably arguing like me that the name is primary by long-term significance given that there was a clear consensus that it wasn't primary by usage and that everyone opposed the move shouldn't the discussion have been "not moved" instead of "No consensus to move"? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
There were a couple of points that are unanswered, so perhaps it was premature to close the discussion here. Specifically:
And uncertain if the other points were comprehensively addressed. Would it be possible to re-open the discussion? Chumpih. ( talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Seemed to be an admin move - that's all. Could a non admin do? Anyway now no issue. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see you be the one arguing that a different capitalization isn't enough to distinguish between two topics, and I'm glad to see it. I thought you were a hard-core small-details advocate. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It's inappropriate for you or anyone else to close discussions in which you participated, as you did here and here. I realise this was quite a while ago. However, in future, please do not close discussions in which you have been involved and/or have shown strong preferences for one view or the other. Good administrators don't do that, and there's no reason for you to do so. Deb ( talk) 10:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. You mentioned an editor "IIO", concerning bypassing RMS. That wouldn't happen to be - In ictu oculi? GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please guide me where to put that request? Because when I used the template, it itself suggested me for this page. Thanks! M. Billoo 06:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Please note that unlike {{Article for deletion}}, the discussion for a page move must take place on the talk page, not on Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Add this template at the bottom of the talk page of the page that you want to be moved.
I probably wouldn't have commented, but for the #Good advice for me section on your UP, in which at least three users made the same comment about limiting redundant comments at Talk pages. One user labeled the ideal response at a TP discussion as "one and done". Those comments were ten years ago, but they are still good advice now. And still worth following, at Talk:Schutzstaffel for example, where your frequent replies to comments in the #Survey section are definitely in WP:BLUDGEON territory, and about as far from "one and done" as you can get. Note that as far as the *content* of your comments there, I agree almost completely with your position (even if I didn't, that would be neither here nor there); I just wanted you to know that I'm not mentioning bludgeoning because I disagree with your comments, but in spite of the fact that I agree with you. Also, the fact that you linked BLUDGEON from your UP in the "Essays" section, made it seem pretty apt to mention here. Hope this helps; the intent is in the spirit of your invitation to editor review at the top of the page. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CRITERIA and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Wikipedia:CRITERIA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Franco-German border. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Pilaz ( talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I would like you to undo your close of Talk:Franco-Italian border and Talk:Austro-Italian border and relist both, for the following reasons:
As I noted on my talk page, I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across all bilateral relations, since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the WP:AT and still matters [...]. The closer continues to say that all five criteria should be considered when making a decision on article titles (which is basically a rephrasing of WP:CRITERIA, which I agree with) and does not prohibit the use of CONSISTENT;
Given the list above, I believe you gave inappropriate weight to the argument of one participant, based on an incorrect reading of an RfC whose scope is very likely much narrower, and whose unknowns could have been elucidated by the closer, hence going against the spirit of the "Determining consensus" section of WP:RMCI. Pilaz ( talk) 18:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC) further edits Pilaz ( talk) 18:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.Me preferring the current title by giving more weight to CONSISTENCY (a criterion) over COMMONNAME (an indicator) after having considered all five criteria is perfectly within the boundaries of WP:AT policy. Supporting diff
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
What do you make of Talk:Easy Jet (horse)#Requested move 22 November 2022 and Talk:Easy Jet (horse)#Requested move 12 October 2015?
So it seems quite clear at least the horse shouldn't have been at the base name. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
What do you make of Talk:Electric battery#Requested move 25 December 2022? @ Amakuru: it seems very much like the Fan discussion in 2018. Most people opposed though 1 opposed only due to it being not worth the change and another appeared to oppose only the specific title. Like the Fan discussion it seems quite clear that the term "electric battery" is not common so is not suitable for natural disambiguation even if recognizable it is not really accurate as "battery" is overwhelmingly used. Do you think the community consensus was reflected there? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
UCRN literally states Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...: yes, generally, but in this case we can't, because "battery" is ambiguous. You can think of it as a descriptive title if you need a policy justification to sleep at night. Now can we move on to something that matters, please? VQuakr ( talk) 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I know there are some refs. mentioned below, but I do not know which reference sources which phrase. Would be great if you as the article creator could help out. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a consensus against the move but "no consensus" seems more appropriate. While I agree Nohomersryan's pageviews point to keeping it as is I'd point that you're point that "There is no ambiguity to disambiguate since the titles in question are already naturally disambiguated" isn't grounded in policy, WP:ATDAB/ WP:PRECISE generally requires us to use complete disambiguation even if other articles have different tiles. Regarding SMALLDETAILS that was presented by both sides I'd point out that the absence of "The" doesn't "indicate a distinct topic" since the title without "The" is the simplest form given most things that formerly have "The Name" are normally indexed as "Name, The" per WP:SORTKEY. Think about the Airplane! example the presence of the "!" indicates the film as a distinct topic but the absence of it doesn't though the generic meaning is primary anyway. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the ratios aren’t quantified it’s a judgement call. In the judgement of this closer, 25:1 qualifies as “much more likely” by any reasonable standard, even with a higher PTM bar. I mean, even twice as likely is arguably “much more likely”. 5x more likely is definitely “much more likely”. 25x shouldn’t be questionable at all. And of course 12x (25k vs 1k + 1k = 25:2 = 12:1) meets the “more likely than all others combined” bar. The point of PT even for PTMs is not to use it only when the other uses are very unlikely to be sought at all. The likelihood to be sought only has to be much more likely than any other topic (and more likely than the others combined) for a given user to warrant PT treatment.
Consider the two measures. In order to be merely more likely than the others combined, the PT candidate only has to be sought slightly more than half the time. So for three topics 52/24/24 meets the bar. Here we have about 93/4/4 (25k:1k:1k). If that’s not PT, what is? —- В²C ☎ 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of List of leaders of Georgia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Here's this for formality's sake, cheers! estar8806 ( talk) ★ 20:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Born2cycle, I hope you're doing well.
I just wanted to come here and discuss your closure of the Talk:List of leaders of Georgia#Requested move 11 July 2023. You said that opposition does not have the policy because we claimed ambiguity when we didn't cite a potential other candidate when we very clearly identified Governor of Georgia as a potential case for confusion. This was a clear-as-day supervote, so I hope you'll consider reverting your decision or at least relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 11:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ SmokeyJoe,
Instead of responding at the RM or even on your talk page, I though I’d do it on my own talk page and tag you. Hope that’s okay. At Talk:List of leaders of Georgia (country)#Requested move 11 July 2023 you recently submitted a comment that I think exemplifies the main difference in our perspectives about title decision-making on WP. You wrote:
Unless I’m mistaken, you’re the only editor on WP with an antipathy of hatnotes as demonstrated by the uniquely-held view that a user merely seeing “a hatnote to something they didn’t want” is an inconvenience. The WP community’s embracing of hatnotes is made obvious by their ubiquitous presence in myriads of articles, not to mention explicit endorsement in policy.
Asserting there is no PT without anchoring such a claim to PT determination criteria is meaningless. Do you have a policy-based argument to oppose this proposal?
In a follow-up comment you reveal an apparent disagreement with policy, which may explain why your arguments are not based in policy:
Title policy is established for us to have titles that are most helpful to readers.
What I see here is a rationalization to IAR title policy rules, especially primary topic, because (you believe) they favor ease of wiki-linking for editors over serving readers.
What you seem to ignore, repeatedly and consistently, is that the primary topic usage criteria is based on what users are most likely seeking when they search with the title in question. In this case we are asked to consider a hypothetical user who searches with “List of leaders of Georgia”. What is the likelihood they’re looking for governors of the US state of Georgia vs leaders of the country named Georgia? Perhaps you saw @ Amakuru’s recent !vote? where they addressed this question directly: “The governor of Georgia is never referred to as the ‘leader of Georgia’”.
Of course, technically the governor is the leader, but the point here is that in normal English usage governors are not referred to as “leaders” and therefore the likelihood that anyone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia” is looking for the list of governors is practically nil. Do you not agree with that? Why?
So how is this not a clear primary topic? How are users not helped by being taken directly to the page they’re seeking rather than to a dab page? In what scenario is a user inconvenienced by having this article at the undisambiguated base name?
I’m tagging @ Huwmanbeing because I’m similarly genuinely perplexed by their similar position on this title and PT in general as well.
Thx, В²C ☎ 13:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
What do you make of the following recent RM discussions on US state capitals?
Which ones would you have supported? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
please revert and reopen. Closure by non-admin expressing "opinion" is a super-vote. This could/should have been relisted to let other train and Poland editors take a longer look. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed the word “opinion“ to “advice from here“. Does that help? –– В²C ☎ 16:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.In other words, my statement reflected the same purpose as the notice: anyone who thinks the article is notable should find the sources to prove it. It takes some pretty serious confirmation bias to find fault in a closer pointing this out in the closing statement. For the 3rd time, if you're confident that this was an improper close, take it to MRV. Otherwise, you're just being disruptive and harassing me. -- В²C ☎ 20:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the current title Proteza koniecpolska is bad, which cries out for the page to be moved somewhere else. It's not recognizable in English. The RM should be held open until a suitable new title emerges, especially with participation this thin. There is an identically-titled article pl:Proteza koniecpolska in Polish. Using Google translate, I'd guess a good English title might be Warsaw– Wrocław high speed rail line renovation ("prosthesis" is probably trying to say "renovation"). We do have bilingual Wikipedians who might be able to help; one of them is on the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. As this has now been nominated for deletion, it would be a terrible waste of editor time to litigate this at Move Review. Move review should be saved for more controversial decisions where there has been extensive discussion and disagreement, it shouldn't be used for relatively trivial matters like this. We don't need English-language sources to demonstrate notability; foreign-language reliable sources may be translated. A high-speed rail link between two major Polish cities seems notable to me. @ SmokeyJoe: @ In ictu oculi: I wouldn't press the matter too much here. After he says "go to MR", I would just open a new RM right below the one he closed, proposing to move to an acceptable English-language title, or if you're unsure of the best title, just make it an open-ended (?) request. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Born2cycle — I just wanted to follow up here on something in particular you'd posted at the most recent ANI discussion. You suggest in multiple places [1] [2] [3] that those who express concern about your behavior do so just because they disagree with you on other matters, or because they have some bias against you. I recall that this is something you've also asserted in previous discussions. I felt I needed to clarify this point specifically with you:
You yourself have pledged to improve some of the same behaviors that other editors are raising; why then do you assert that those who voice similar concerns are not doing so honestly? One of your pledges was to be more receptive to feedback on your behavior; another was to welcome and encourage input on how to improve; another was to accept that the mere fact that you're not violating the letter of any policies or guidelines doesn't mean there's no problem to address.
As noted at the ANI, your long-term behaviors (primarily in RMs) have been the subject of a remarkable number of discussions and disputes over a very long period, with concerns expressed or echoed by a great number of different editors past and present. The suggestion that it's all a personally-motivated campaign against you seems disingenuous and unsupported by the evidence — and out of step with your pledge. Do you understand that the long-term behaviors which have been raised over many years, and the repeated debates that they regularly trigger, are not beneficial for the project? And that it's appropriate for members of the community to be concerned about that? ╠╣uw [ talk 11:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
There are 2 new proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle) (and the section directly below). I don't think they will be successful since the previous (lesser) proposal failed but I'm just letting you know as you haven't commented there. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
When I unblocked you I suggested that you follow your PROPOSAL: 'what if I agreed to comment usually only once per RM and in any title-related discussion on policy/guideline/style talk pages, and never more than three times, not including correct edits? "Usually" would mean that more than half of two or more participations in such discussions over any given period of time. For example, if I commented more than once in 5 out of the last 8 such discussions, I would be in violation.
' As you have commented at
Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Yoghurt Principle three times, that's it. No more, and take this a more than just a suggestion. The community would like to see you "self-moderate" more than you have been lately.
wbm1058 (
talk)
22:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
And you went over the limit at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Objective opinions, please – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the impolite edit summary, I was wondering how you found that article within 12 hours of its creation? wbm1058 ( talk) 04:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Take it easy on Julián Castro. You're coming across a bit too heavy-handed. wbm1058 ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit suspicious. Look at the time stamps of the four opposes that appeared in a row:
Two 8 minute gaps then a 9 minute gap. Very strange coincidence. — В²C ☎ 07:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So you feel as you stated above that sometimes you are railroaded when your behavior is no different the behavior that others get away with. Here is an example of where you have shown outlier behavior.
We ask editors to use {{ subst:requested move}} to submit RMs for a reason. That template calls a module that does a bunch of error-checking for bad or missing parameters, syntax or template placement to ensure that the syntax of the RM is formatted in the standard way that the bot expects to find it. It's frustrating when editors use the /dated template directly, or incorrectly refactor RMs after-the-fact. I keep needing to make changes to the bot so it handles these refactorings in a more optimal way, as more unexpected refactorings happen.
When editors make these kinds of mistakes who I don't recognize to be frequent RM participants, I just quietly fix the error and advise them to please do it the right way next time. I realize there are a lot of instructions and rules to follow, and it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be perfect the first time they submit a RM. When a lot of people keep making the same mistake, I don't view it as their problem – I view it as a system problem calling for changes to make the process more intuitive. But I expect the RM regulars to know better, and to not waste my time by making errors that I need to fix.
So when
MelanieN, a highly-respected sysop, but not, AFAIK, a frequent RM-submitter,
enters a malformed request, I simply
FIX it, with an edit summary advising to use the right template next time. No big deal. How I fix it is a bit of a trade secret, but it's something anyone can do if they know what they're doing. It would be nice to have more help fixing these malformed requests because I can't always be patrolling for them. I kind of expect anyone who positions themselves as a sort of RM expert and hall monitor to be able to do this. The secret is to not trust yourself to be able to manually refactor the request, but rather to use {{
subst:RM}} to fix the syntax, taking advantage of its built-in error checking. |header=n
and |sign=n
are special parameters used to do this. Just edit the existing request to re-do it this way, and if the diff looks good in show-preview, save the change.
When you made
THIS edit to refactor another editor's request, "adding explicity move of the dab page to this proposal which was originally only implied
", you broke the syntax. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here.
Julián Castro is a
WP:TWODAB I recently created after I closed
Talk:Julián Castro (Venezuelan politician)#Requested move 12 January 2019. That move needed to happen first, to clear out the primary-topic links before the other article could be moved to PT status.
HERE's my edit history for this disambiguaiton work. While working through those, I found a few where
articles refering to the American had been linking to the Venezuelan. Editors closing RMs like this really should be expected to do at least some of this disambiguation work after they close them, so as to "share the load" with the editors over at
WP:DPL. Your closing statement "this is messy because of the move of the Venezuelan president during this discussion
" seems confusing to me. We couldn't exactly wait until deciding to make the American PT to move the Venezuelan off PT. The there is a clear consensus that the Venezelan is not primary; there is not an equally clear consensus yet that the American is. So closing out the Venezulan RM helped to focus the PT debate in one place, on the American's RM. Your close, effectively slamming the door on the move to
Julián Castro (American politician), switched the bias towards making him the PT. Now whoever ultimately closes this really needs to review the opinions in both discussions (three discussions actually, as views on this were also expressed in the Venezuelan's RM). I'm not sure how much, if any benefit was gained by refactoring this. If it's decided that he is not PT, then the page will still need to move to
Julián Castro (American politician), despite your close that said there was "clearly no consensus" to move to that title.
Julian Castro should ultimately redirect to
Julián Castro (or vice versa), regardless of whether there is a PT or not; targeting different places based on a mere difference in diacritics is really silly and I'm surprised it's been allowed to go on for this long.
Another editor made a manual edit trying to fix your refactoring at 22:24, 24 January 2019; minutes later the bot, which was not expecting that, made this edit at 22:30, 24 January 2019. After this spurious bot notice came to my attention, I needed to debug the issue and subsequently make a patch to the code in order to stop the bot from edit-warring over removal of its misplaced message.
None of this would have been necessary if you hadn't decided that moving the two-dab to (disambiguation) was necessary. The two-dab doesn't really need to be moved; the closing administrator may simply move over the top of it and delete it. Or they could move it to the (disambiguation) title, and then delete it there. This is not such a big deal that you needed to refactor the request over it. If the disambiguation page was a long-standing page with several items on it, that would be a different matter. But this is just a possibly temporary dab I created to help me do the necessary disambiguation work.
So why did my bot get confused? It expects |current1=
to be the page whose talk is hosting the discussion. You made |current1=
the disambiguation page. In that scenario, the bot assumes that the page hosting the discussion is not part of the move request. Hence, I suppose, when it found that it was indeed part of the move request after all, the bot needed to notify the page hosting the RM that the page was part of the proposed move after all. Or something like that. My head and my code are spinning now, as I just patched it without fully comprehending the mechanism by which it was invoked. In essence, you made the trivial matter of what to do with my likely temporary dab the focus of the move discussion, with what to do with Castro's bio an afterthought.
So getting back to the matter of your "railroading". None of those other editors have disrupted the RM process and bot in this manner. I expect anyone acting as an RM expert and the process' hall monitor to actually have some expertise in the process, and not do things to disrupt it. That's something maybe I need to deal with the others doing, but not you. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
2) either eliminate the DAB page which is currently at Julián Castro (regarding it as unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER), or else move it to Julián Castro (disambiguation).-- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course the current1/current2 stuff. I should have caught that. So sorry.
To help prevent such errors in the future, I think somewhere we should document how to convert a single page RM to a multi-page move manually. I'll give it a stab.
When converting a single-page move to a multi-page move, follow this example. You will start with a single-page move that looks something like this:
{{requested move/dated|Current page}}
[[:Current page]] → {{no redirect|Other page}} – reasoning/sig/date
Say you want to add another move, moving "Other page" to "Other page (disambiguation)". Alter the above to this multiple format:
{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes|current1=Other page|new1=Other page (disambiguation)|current2=Current page|new2=Other page|}}
* [[:Other page]] → {{no redirect|Other page (disambiguation)}}
* [[:Current page]] → {{no redirect|Other page}} – reasoning/sig/date
Is that correct? -- В²C ☎ 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
|header=n
if you want to keep the existing section header rather than paste over it, and |sign=n
if you're repairing someone else's request, to keep their signature and not add your own. The other editor's signature will be at the end of the |reason=
field, and becomes a part of that parameter. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
21:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You may want to review your comment [5] because stonewalling and bludgeoning does not equates to willingness to discuss but opposite of it since it means exhausting patience of others. There is evidence of edit warring and basic lack of understanding of English. Hamster Sandwich had opposed but soon changed his initial "oppose" [6] and to say he sees no evidence when his 2nd comment shows otherwise would be misleading. Harmanprtjhj ( talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You wrote (19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)): "I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here."
*Comment I just want to point out that not only has nobody pointed out anything wrong with my activity in the list of all my recent RM activity above that Levivich has compiled so helpfully, but this AN/I was started due to my terse reaction to an WP:INVOLVED admin [7] [8] placing a warning on my talk page [9]. That doesn't excuse my reaction (referring to him as a "jerk") [10], but I think it helps explain it. I don't see how or why this rises to the level of even the type of warning being considered here. -- В²C ☎ 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Born2cycle, I have reviewed the ANI thread ( corrected link -- В²C ☎ 18:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)) relating to you. As you are aware, a large consensus of participants at the ANI thread disapproved of your actions in discussions, although there was no consensus for any specific sanction against your editing privileges. I have closed it with the following outcome: "Born2cycle is warned that the community has found his commenting in discussions excessive and disruptive, and that future similar behavior may result in sanctions." If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh for heavens sake! B2C, I haven’t chimed in on any of numerous recent times when you have been accused of badgering and IDHT. In fact the last time I pointed out how disruptive you can be at talk pages was 2013. [15] But you haven’t changed a bit, and here you are, proving it yet again: badgering L235 about his close, which DID reflect the consensus of the discussion there, and continuing to IDHT insist that you don’t understand or don’t agree with the conclusion. You have gotten warning after warning - going back at least as far as 2012, when you were warned at ArbCom that your “contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors” [16]. That warning didn’t help; nothing has helped. In spite of all the warnings you haven’t changed a bit. Yes, in this case you once again got away with a warning, which you will once again ignore. I know you will never change. I am only commenting here because Kevin is a gentle and courteous person, who will try to reply patiently to your questions - and I want him to realize that trying to explain anything like this to you or respond to you is a hopeless quest, a bottomless pit, and the only possible way out is to disengage. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the confusion here stems from the fact that it isn't one particular edit, so nobody is able to point to one edit or discussion as something that stands out as being obviously problematic. I think it mostly boils down to (a) a certain tenacious approach you have in discussions combined with (b) a slightly abrasive style. As evidence of (b), consider (i) what you apologized to me for recently and (ii) this edit summary (You surely know what DS alerts are for). These two in combination are pissing people off. Hope that helps, ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok you know that stuff above you were warned about? You're doing it again in relation to
What Men Want. --
Netoholic
@
22:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So I don't really understand article titling conventions. Was hoping you could chime in on a few that confuse me: Townhouse, Terraced house (two different names for the same thing, so they're forks IMO), Rowhouse (the same thing but only in a certain part of the US, yet it's a redirect to the British Terraced house instead of the American Townhouse), but note Townhouse (Great Britain) (not the same thing, but part of the equation somehow). Note for comparison Flat (housing) is a redirect to Apartment. What's to be done about Townhouse and Terraced house in your opinion (if anything)? And what about Jackscrew and Acrow prop? Thanks! Leviv ich 04:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C
Please could you reList the request at Park Street station? I missed the debate, having already opposed the move at User talk:Cuchullain. There also doesn't seem to be a clearcut consensus for a complete reversal of primary topics. It would be normal to have a disambiguation page in this scenario. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 07:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for closing RMs. You seem to be doing ok.
RE: Talk:The_Independent_Group#Requested_move_19_February_2019. Was that “no consensus” or “consensus to not move”? Refer Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Three_possible_outcomes. Or somewhere between? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
You moved a page to MMR-autism myth. with a hyphen and a period at the end. Please be more careful when moving pages. There also is no consensus on what title the page should be moved to, but you moved it just to move it? Natureium ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Guy (
Help!)
09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose that you do not close any discussion or move any page for an indefinite period of time. cygnis insignis 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.
If anyone gives me good reason on my talk page to revert this close and reopen, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm hoping everyone agrees this is the most reasonable choice[17]
That seems to make myth a clear winner, right?[18] So I was quite surprised by your reaction since the title I chose was the myth one listed there. -- В²C ☎ 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that "MMR vaccine and autism myth", "MMR vaccine and autism conspiracy theory", and "MMR vaccine and autism hoax" all have broader support than the current name, wouldn't it be prudent to move it to one of those rather than leave it here? Even if discussion continues between those three, right now it seems to have defaulted to one of the least popular names per the above discussions. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Philosophically, I agree, but all of those also include a value judgment in the title and that is likely to be controversial for antivax-sympathetic editors - the discussion above may well result in consensus for one of these, but this RM is premature as no resolution has been found yet. Guy ( Help!) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Born2cycle: Having noticed the ( most) recent move-related incident related to you at ANI, I felt I should come here to suggest that you refrain from performing move request closures, but I see that that discussion has already been started above by other editors — a fact that reinforces my belief that this is something you should consider seriously. By this point the reasons should be clear, but in case they're not, I'll describe a couple as I see them:
To be clear, I'm not saying that you cannot act impartially. I'm saying that someone who's principally dedicated themselves to influencing title policy and practice across Wikipedia will likely not appear neutral regarding moves and titling in general — and per the instructions, "even the appearance of conflict of interest is worth avoiding."
Put simply, and based on the evidence, I think it would be better both for you and for the community if you refrained from closing discussions in general, and move discussions in particular. I would ask that you please do so. ╠╣uw [ talk 10:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The other part is that any editor who's recently been ANI'ed and blocked for behavior relating to move requests is liable (rightly or wrongly) to be a source of unnecessary drama when he starts closing move requests. To me that seems fairly self-evident: would you agree?
It's great for an editor to want to close discussions, but our instructions seem clear that doing so is not an absolute right, and that if there's a question about a potential closer being appropriate for the role, then "there is no harm in erring on the side of caution."
Given that multiple editors are now suggesting exactly that, I would ask you to reconsider, and to please refrain from performing move closures.
╠╣uw [
talk
18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
╠╣uw [
talk
14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep a public log of closes and moves. Kind of like the diff bomb I posted to ANI last month but with more detail. Note which closes were questioned, re-opened, etc. You might spend some time back-filling the log, maybe to the beginning of Feb or the beginning of 2019. When people come here to complain that you're not doing a good job overall or that you're out of step with consensus, you can point them to the page. Hard data will speak the loudest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you asked for a ping, could you please respond at Talk:Democratic Action Party (disambiguation)? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Please try to avoid relisting move requests that you are also supporting or opposing. It can make closes more complicated than necessary because it basically acts as a supervote. Relisting is supposed to be an action taken by a possible closer (i.e. an uninvolved editor) who declines to close the discussion. I know you don't usually do this, but it seems to have happened at least three times in the last week. We could get into the weeds about whether closers can ever be fully objective, but it would be easier just to let others relist. Dekimasu よ! 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Dekimasu and SmokeyJoe, thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I’m honored! I want to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Relisting_and_participating which notes that there is “no consensus” about whether involved editors can or should relist, but when it’s done the relister should be prepared to explain. And here we are!
So, except in rare cases where there is some kind of urgency to resolve the RM in question, I see no harm in relisting by anyone for any reason. If a discussion is elapsed and it looks like there is no clear consensus and discussion is ongoing, I’m apt to relist, whether I throw in my two cents or not, and I have no objection to anyone else doing the same. That’s where I stand, but I’m open to be persuaded otherwise. — В²C ☎ 05:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't trying in particular to make a comment about policy–and I don't think I have ever argued with you much, or at all, about RMs. I know what WP:RM says about participation and relisting ("no consensus forbidding" participation and relisting), but I was still making a request to you that you avoid doing it. RM also says "best left to... editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion" which implies that the editor in question was capable of closing the discussion–i.e. hadn't participated at the time. From time to time I have seen editors !vote a few days after relisting a sparsely attended discussion, or something like that. But I don't think I have ever seen relisting and a !vote in the same comment from an experienced editor; and we definitely don't want to see that sort of practice spread to unexperienced editors relisting their own requests, etc. Something like the relisting at Talk:Climate change looks pretty clearly like recognition that the opinion you expressed and your "closer" reading of the expired discussion don't match up. Why not, then, leave it to someone else to judge whether your input has changed the course of the discussion such that relisting would be useful?
As a separate issue, I know that there is a difference of philosophy among RM participants as to whether "no consensus" closes are a bad thing. There is such a thing as a discussion that trends toward an even split, on policy and guidelines and numerical support, and in such cases there is a clear outcome that is neither "consensus to move" nor "consensus not to move". "No consensus" doesn't usually mean keeping the discussion open longer would result in a consensus, and I think keeping a clear "no consensus" discussion open longer is a net negative not because there will be more entries in the backlog, but because editors have a finite amount of energy for RM participation. Closing discussions that have a clear lack of consensus either way allows discussions that would benefit from further participation to be more prominent on the RM page. Dekimasu よ! 14:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I still don't remember this, but you are quite correct. Based on what it says, sounds like I did a relisting for the first time then. I'm pretty sure that was my last one for years. User_talk:Born2cycle/Archive_8#Relisting_of_Talk:Journey_Through_the_Decade#Requested_move_04_August_2013. -- В²C ☎ 00:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Alcatraz_Citadel#Requested_move_12_February_2019 just got relisted a third time. Unusual? Before the third relist it had only one participant (yours truly) besides the nom. Now it already has a second participant and it's starting to look like it will achieve consensus. What if it hadn't been relisted but had been closed as no consensus? How is that better? Or what if an involved editor, the nom or myself, had relisted? What would have been so bad about that? -- В²C ☎ 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Above I opined: While there will always be exceptions, there is no reason to have rules with explicit built-in ambiguities, like the juxtaposed likelihood of being sought and historical significance criteria in primary topic, where editors are asked to "balance" the two when they are in conflict, with no additional guidance on how to do that. Some think likelihood is more important, others think historical significance, and the way these discussions go largely depends on who happens to weigh in. That's not a system. That's designing for chaos.
There is a great example of this going on at Talk:Ghost_World_(film)#Requested_move_7_March_2019. The nom presented a strong argument that the film is primary based on both PT criteria. But an other editor has countered that the original comic is more historically significant, and therefore should remain primary. Who's right? There is no way to know for sure, because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not give us guidance for these situations. However it turns out, it will mostly depend on the proclivities and whims of whoever happens to show up. If this RM was opened a month earlier or a month later, the difference in the makeup of participants is sufficiently likely to make it go the other way. We can do better. We should do better. -- В²C ☎ 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think that the album is the "one and only" subject called "Unlikely" but you don't think that that's the case with Freston? As far as I can see both Probability and Likelihood function are reasonable PRIMARYREDIRECT contenders for "Unlikely" but I don't see that for "Freston" since there is no other topic called just "Freston" even though there are other places and people that are partly called that, none are called just "Freston" (since we don't have an encyclopedia article on the surname) or well known enough to be likely to be searched for with "Freston". Surely you're point here about not sending readers onto an obscure village would easily apply to not sending readers onto an obscure album when we have coverage of "Unlikely" at Probability and Likelihood function. Even if people are unlikely to look for those topic with "unlikely", its surely unlikely that they would be looking for Unlikely. With surnames yes I agree that its fine to take them into account (and other PTMs) if there are at least 2 full matches but if there isn't then we are wrongly implying that the term is ambiguous.
While with Ovens you argued that you argued that you didn't think that the cooker was primary for the plural but its just WP convention that articles are at the single form when WP NC could use the plural form (as noted here). Its clear in this case that an everyday noun that everyone knows is far far more likely to be searched and by far more notable than a village of 1,703 and a town of 219 even if it is at "Oven" not "Ovens". Note that the categories Category:Ovens, Commons:Category:Ovens are there and that while "Windows" redirects to the company both Category:Windows and Commons:Category:Windows are about the part of the building (though I did clear some images out of the Commons category intended for Microsoft). So yes being at a different title is a consideration (per WP:PLURALPT "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form...") but still should be considered.
Here (sorry to quote a discussion from years ago but it is relevant) you made a point about how we title v what is primary. But in this case it looks like nobody would expect the article on Tom to be at "Freston" while readers may expect to get info on probability and similar at "Unlikely" but the cooker could easily be expected to be at "Ovens".
At Settle, you argued that "All of the alleged three other uses are at appropriate non-disambiguated titles; none would be at Settle even if there were no other uses" but as noted further down the discussion there were miss links and that not everyone searching for the other uses (such as Settler) would know to search for that term. Again this would seem a good example of a term being ambiguous with a different title. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
no evidence that any other uses are commonly referred to as "settle", much less are likely to be searched for with that term.. That last part is what's most important to primary topic determination. In contrast, I argue somebody named Tom Freston is likely to be sought with just freston. I know I would. If I'm looking for an actor or author or ceo or bicyclist or whoever I'm searching for with a relatively unusual surname, I'm certainly not going to bother also entering their first name into the search box. I seriously doubt that's uncommon practice. -- В²C ☎ 21:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely means:
But the article Probability (and Likelihood function) are relevant to the meaning of "Unlikely" which unlike the above doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIC but actually WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Its possible for a topic usually considered "encyclopedic" such as Red to be put in a dictionary manor for example;
Red means:
I searched for Retroactive for example when looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#GeneralG5 and found Ex post facto law which was useful. By contrast I would never even think of entering Newton into the search box to find if I wasn't aware that such searches work since its obvious that a person will usually include their first name. Do you agree with my point about NOTDIC v primary topic? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C! User:Xain36 has been making a lot of edits in their very short time on Wikipedia, including opening and closing move requests. In my opinion, they don't have the necessary experience or judgement to be doing this. Can their enthusiasm be redirected to an area where they will do less damage? I've already butted heads with them, so I don't know the best way to go about this. Danielklein ( talk) 13:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C. Lobbyist is not accurate, but agree that UK politics is not defined enough. Also in your comments you don't seem convinced that lobbyist is right. I suggest Anthony Browne (business). This is very similar to Simon Walker (business).
Beetlepin
Beetlepin ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
From MR: Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.
—
В²C
☎
15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so should I present my position to B2C on this page? Or go back to the page in question? I'm unsure as the discussion is now closed but I didn't get to contribute to it. Beetlepin ( talk) 14:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C. I would like to further discuss your decision regarding the Broccolini title/article name. I would like to offer further evidence that "baby broccoli" is the industry term for this plant even though it is not a "baby". Whether this name makes sense is not the issue, the issue is what is this common name of this plant in the industry. I have attached links to seven different produce companies (nationally and internationally) who use different brand names for the product/vegetable, which they all call baby broccoli, along with other third party links referencing the generic name baby broccoli. Given this evidence, would you consider amending your closure of the request move discussion. I hope this is the right place to insert links. Please let me know if you do not see the links or this is incorrect forum for discussion. MWMDL ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Major Produce Companies
- Foxy Organic - https://www.foxy.com/what-we-grow/sweet-baby-broccoli - Lakeside Organic Gardens - http://www.lakesideorganic.com/vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/ - Markon - https://www.markon.com/produce-guide/broccoli-baby-sweet-mfc - Ocean Mist - https://www.oceanmist.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli - Green Giant Fresh - https://www.greengiantfresh.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli-pouch/ - Josie's Organics- https://josiesorganics.com/whole-vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/ - Bulmer Farms- http://bulmerfarms.com.au/baby-broccoli/ - Rugby Farms- https://www.rugbyfarm.com.au/produce/view/baby-broccoli/1
Third Party Reference to Baby Broccoli
Martha Stewart Recipe - https://www.marthastewart.com/329040/sauteed-baby-broccoli Primal Palate Recipe- https://www.primalpalate.com/paleo-recipe/roasted-baby-broccoli/ Williams Sonoma Recipe - https://www.williams-sonoma.com/recipe/baby-broccoli-with-garlic.html Food Network recipe- https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchen/baby-broccoli-with-oyster-sauce-recipe-2104091 Betty Crocker Recipe- https://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/garlic-baby-broccoli/a8dfad0c-6067-46b9-ae02-4b5823d59bd1 Bew York Times- https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1012936-fettuccine-with-braised-mushrooms-and-baby-broccoli
Note- NONE of these references call the product/vegetable Broccolini. It's all called baby broccoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWMDL ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Born2cycle! Regarding the move request at Talk:Dragon 2#Requested move 2 March 2019, I would challenge your finding of "not moved"; the discussion rather shows "no consensus". The outcome is the same, keep the existing title, but a lack of consensus would allow more flexibility for a future move. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and possibly an amendment to your close. — JFG talk 05:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Greetings B2c. I am editing articles for the seven high schools in Arlington, Texas. A question has arisen regarding the article title for Arlington High School (Texas). The article titles for the other high schools in Arlington, Texas identify the school name followed by parenthetical "Arlington, Texas", e.g., Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) , Martin High School (Arlington, Texas) and Seguin High School (Arlington, Texas). But the article for Arlington High School is titled simply Arlington High School (Texas). Obviously, a title of "Arlington High School (Arlington, Texas)" would be consistent with titles used for other high schools in Arlington, Texas. However, the articles for other Arlington High Schools in other states use a parenthetical with the state name only, e.g., Arlington High School (California), Arlington High School (New York), etc. So the current title for Arlington High School is consistent with the usage in other states, but not with local schools. You can't be consistent with both usages. So how does one decide? In other words, should the article titles be consistent on the local level or on the national level? My view is that the title with the full (Arlington, Texas) is preferable, because high school names are more of a local interest than a state-to-state interest. Since you are a "article title specialist", I thought I would ask for your view before I initiated any changes. Krivak957 ( talk) 09:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Saint Peter#Requested move 17 May 2019, you crossed the supervote line by adding your personal unjustified opinion that a new RM using ranked would be a good idea. There is no indication of a good reason to move from the status quo, there is an ugly history or s8milar RMs for that article, and Inhave explained to you at WT:RM why ranked voting is contrary to consensus decision making. Your inability to understand objections to your new ideas for algorithmic solutions is not my problem but yours. If you can’t understand, you should slow down on pushing theories, definitely not push them into your closing statements. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Calidum
18:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
There are many faulty assumptions repeated in the move discussions. I took the time to write a note to each argument that I debate. See the "
Note:" lines at
User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM. —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤)
05:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fyi. Today's comedy:
User_talk:InvalidOS#Non_admin_closure_of_contentious_move_review —
Aron M🍂
(🛄📤)
16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that there was no consensus in this case, I'd point out that the OP's proposal was mainly that "Time machine" should redirect to Time travel. The 2 users who supported the original proposal seem to only be that "Time machine" should redirect to Time travel rather than if the DAB page is at Time machine (disambiguation) or Time Machine. Netoholic's point would seem to have been addressed by me and others that a redirect to Time travel would do until/if we have a separate article at "Time machine". Aside from 1 user who stated that they agreed with Netoholic the other user who supported moving the DAB to Time Machine was me and I stated that the lower case title should indeed redirect to Time travel (the original proposal). The arguments about WP:DABNAME (the only other use of the lower case being only a WP:DABMENTION) and WP:DIFFCAPS (similar to Iron maiden) would surely say that there was consensus to make "Time machine" a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Time travel (without prejudice of a separate article being written there) and the DAB at Time Machine (upper case, which there doesn't seem to be opposition for). If anyone feels that the DAB should be at Time machine (disambiguation) then per WP:THREEOUTCOMES that proposal could be made at any time, thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you should revert your close, as you do not appear to recognize consistency as one of the criteria for selecting the name of a page, and that was one of the arguments presented. Furthermore, 1 (year), etc. was rejected as the name of the year 1, etc.; so consistency, again, suggests that 911 (year) should have been rejected. Furthermore, the move should have been deferred to allow Wikipedia:WikiProject Years some time to fix the templates. This move has too much collateral damage to be closed by a non-admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that you have an extensive interest in titles I'm wandering what you're opinion is with this RM having raised it here with no response.
Arguments in favour of the move:
Arguments against the move:
There was also a point that although there is an island called just " Shuna" the hatnote on the Loch Linnhe one would suffice per WP:SMALLDETAILS (there are other "Shuna"s so I'd just leave the Slate Islands one disambiguated instead of moving it to plain "Shuna").
Would you have supported these moves? How much basis in policy does the fact that a name is tautological have? There is even a list at List of tautological place names. Danna, Scotland/ Island of Danna and Stroma, Scotland/ Island of Stroma also have the same issue. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi B2C! Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Morrone in case it helps; a similar situation. This Marie Claire profile is WP:SIGCOV (in my opinion) – mainstream international publication, author with byline, thousands of words, focused on the subject. These two [23] [24] might make the grade, except they were published at the same time (Aug 2019), so it doesn't demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage and will likely be discounted on WP:BLP1E grounds. NYT and CBS are first-rate sources, but those particular articles aren't SIGCOV of Carter, they're SIGCOV of something else that happen to mention Carter. A test I use is how many separate statements of fact can I cite to this source? If it's dozens of facts in one source, it's in-depth SIGCOV. If it's only two or three facts – even if it's a dozen mentions – then it's not SIGCOV. When I search for Carter's name without the name of her ex-husband or current girlfriend, I find very little in terms of coverage. You run into the WP:INHERITED argument: spouses and significant others may be all over the media, but you don't get a WP page just for being someone's husband or wife. In the Marrone AfD, I had to show SIGCOV from before she met Leo (which I found by searching on Google using the date limiting tools... before 2017 I think it was, and in Spanish to boot), to demonstrate notability. I'm not going to !vote in the Carter DRV (if I did, I would vote draftify based on the one GNG source I've seen so far, the Marie Claire profile), but thought this might help. If you have one or two other examples like the Marie Clarie profile, but from different time periods, that might convince DRV voters to RESTORE in that DRV, but if you don't, it could be refunded to draft until either you or someone else finds such sources, or new sources are written (which is very possible/likely, I think). (And I'd guess the original AfD closer would REFUND to draft on request.) Cheers! – Leviv ich 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop removing piped links, as requested by SmokeyJoe. Despite what Drovethrughosts said, [25] it is not harmless, and even they pointed out it is unnecessary and contrary to guidelines. Andrewa ( talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
[[redirect]]
→ [[target|redirect]]
). B2C's edits (at least the couple I looked at) are doing the opposite - replacing redundant piped links like [[The Americans (2013 TV series)|The Americans]]
with the simpler [[The Americans]]
. This seems like a desirable change according to the wording of
WP:NOTBROKEN itself: Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form., and also
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.See also WP:NOPIPE:
First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Colin M ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Her official Facebook page is this https://www.facebook.com/ketakikadamofficial/ And my friend Sydell has personally met Ketaki and the actress told her how much problems she faced for her verification of her instagram account when previously her account was me_ketaki_kadam on Instagram but because of verification problems she changed it to me_ketki_kadam but her real name is Ketaki . Please help her and get this problem fixed .IMDB has alo mispelled her name .Her real name is Ketaki it's because of this media articles that publish wrong names . Please try to understand Anu1999 ( talk) 11:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Copy/pasting discussion from User:Born2cycle#Bad_RM_decisions to here:
Your close at Talk:Friendly Fire#Requested move 22 August 2019 is not good. You have have locked jaw support of a rigid reading of WP:DIFFCAPS, and this discussion explicitly challenged the applicability of DIFFCAPS to this case. This makes you INVOLVED. It was also contentious, which makes the close a WP:BADNAC. You do not summarize the arguments but simply assert your own opinion. WP:Supervote. The interplay between written policy, changing consensus, and the role of discussion is something you are previously not been good at. You also neglect to declare in the close that you are a non admin closer, which is always bad form. Would you please revert you close and participate instead with a !vote. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Please could you revert your close here? I don't see a consensus, and the idea that "Friendly Fire" doesn't mean the same as "friendly fire" is clearly ridiculous, there's no strong reason for that move to have been moved when many people experienced with page-move policy disagreed. It should be no consensus. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
"The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, ...", so what really matters here, as several supporters pointed out, is the intent of a user when they bother to capitalize in the specific context of a Search for Friendly Fire on Wikipedia. Users who don't know WP Search is case sensitive won't bother to capitalize, especially if they're not looking for one of the uses with a proper name, and will get treated exactly as you want all users to be treated - taken to generic Friendly fire. But those who do bother to capitalize as Friendly Fire should be taken to the dab page to be one step closer to finding the article they're almost certainly seeking, rather than to the generic use they're almost certainly not seeking. The title/article configuration supported by a 2:1 ratio of participants complies with the explicitly stated purpose of DIFFCAPS much better than the status quo favored by the minority in opposition. So I hope you understand why I'm not persuaded to revert, especially by anyone who participated in opposition. -- В²C ☎ 20:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't vote in this RM, but FWIW, you might guess from my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51, that I support the move. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a comment, B2C: I see that you haven’t changed. You still like to characterize any opinion that disagrees with yours as “pointless, blatant, and illogical”, “plainly ridiculous”, “ridiculous”, “rationalizing”, “fantastic”. Look around that discussion, please; you will notice that nobody else uses that kind of language to ridicule other people’s positions. You have been scolded in the past, more than once, for intolerance toward other people’s opinions. Let’s try to keep it cordial and collaborative, shall we? -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you just hold up for a bit? Edit conflict already wrecked a large update I'd made, and as I now try to add it section by section, I continue to hit edit conflict. I had started editing today prior to yourself, so please just wait a bit. I was finished until I hit your conflicting edits. Thank you. Sunny Clark ( talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Little ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Kolossus (disambigution) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kolossus (disambigution) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards 84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I found that you were involved in the early inclusion of surnames into what is now WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I am considering starting an RfC to deprecate such surname PRIMARYREDIRECTS and wanted your input. You can view my sandbox draft of the RfC proposal here. Every day, we see more and more surname PRIMARYREDIRECT WP:Requested moves, which now often devolve into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifications. I think, when one considers all the particulars related to biographical names, though, this practice probably isn't a good one in -any- case. Thanks for your time and thoughts. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder in Texas. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem with you're closes I'm pretty sure others will since you have previously had controversy with titles of royal people. You might have been better adding !votes instead? Anyway thankyou for you're participation in RMs. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I find it mildly annoying that you could not discern appeals to WP:CONSISTENT and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY in my !vote or anyone else's. Since nobody disputed the WP:PREDIRECT situation, COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC always seemed beside the point. That leaves CONCISE, which I believe was addressed. Given the first support at George III (and second at George IV) cited an essay by you, your close may have the appearance of a supervote. Srnec ( talk) 00:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
May I ask what is your reason for contesting this move? VR talk 02:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The spelling does have historical significance. It is the difference between the closely related languages of two countries that are at war. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
Please do not revert again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston § Requested move 10 February 2021. Hi В²C, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my RM? Thanks, ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
In my patrols for problems I found this multiple-screwup of the move of Chesly Sullenberger ← (click that link). It is frustrating for me to find one incompetent "professional page mover" asking for and getting "help" from another incompetent professional page mover. You shouldn't need to be making typos on your simple page moves when closing one-move RMs, nor leaving overly terse edit summaries like "Per RM".
Look at the example RM templates at Wikipedia:Template index/Moving/Requested. Several of them including the first, which demonstrates the most common scenario, have a "direct move" link at the bottom right corner of the template. Click this link and your typo-free move will be initiated with a pre-filled edit summary that has a link back to the discussion. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 02:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Stranger's Recognition |
I don't know you; I'm nobody, and we've never met, and I have no grasp of etiquette in this unintuitive hell, but there's a button here that says I can send my regards, and a good part of me says you deserve some appreciation. Sunberreiy ( talk) 11:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC) |
Why don't you think that the Chinese whispers move shouldn't have been reverted? Surely the oppose side made the stronger case to keep it at this title namely that "Chinese whispers" is 30% more common that the other 2 names combined in NGrams and even if it wasn't WP:NATURAL is an effective tie breaker. Applying the WP:TITLECHANGES and the yogurt principle, firstly is there a good reason to change this controversial title? No there isn't as per the evidence presented. Secondly if the article was at "Telephone (game)" already would there be a reason to change it? Yes there would again because the evidence and ATDAB support "Chinese whispers". Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
While the nomination and BD2412 were probably arguing like me that the name is primary by long-term significance given that there was a clear consensus that it wasn't primary by usage and that everyone opposed the move shouldn't the discussion have been "not moved" instead of "No consensus to move"? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
There were a couple of points that are unanswered, so perhaps it was premature to close the discussion here. Specifically:
And uncertain if the other points were comprehensively addressed. Would it be possible to re-open the discussion? Chumpih. ( talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Seemed to be an admin move - that's all. Could a non admin do? Anyway now no issue. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see you be the one arguing that a different capitalization isn't enough to distinguish between two topics, and I'm glad to see it. I thought you were a hard-core small-details advocate. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It's inappropriate for you or anyone else to close discussions in which you participated, as you did here and here. I realise this was quite a while ago. However, in future, please do not close discussions in which you have been involved and/or have shown strong preferences for one view or the other. Good administrators don't do that, and there's no reason for you to do so. Deb ( talk) 10:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. You mentioned an editor "IIO", concerning bypassing RMS. That wouldn't happen to be - In ictu oculi? GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please guide me where to put that request? Because when I used the template, it itself suggested me for this page. Thanks! M. Billoo 06:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Please note that unlike {{Article for deletion}}, the discussion for a page move must take place on the talk page, not on Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Add this template at the bottom of the talk page of the page that you want to be moved.
I probably wouldn't have commented, but for the #Good advice for me section on your UP, in which at least three users made the same comment about limiting redundant comments at Talk pages. One user labeled the ideal response at a TP discussion as "one and done". Those comments were ten years ago, but they are still good advice now. And still worth following, at Talk:Schutzstaffel for example, where your frequent replies to comments in the #Survey section are definitely in WP:BLUDGEON territory, and about as far from "one and done" as you can get. Note that as far as the *content* of your comments there, I agree almost completely with your position (even if I didn't, that would be neither here nor there); I just wanted you to know that I'm not mentioning bludgeoning because I disagree with your comments, but in spite of the fact that I agree with you. Also, the fact that you linked BLUDGEON from your UP in the "Essays" section, made it seem pretty apt to mention here. Hope this helps; the intent is in the spirit of your invitation to editor review at the top of the page. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:CRITERIA and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Wikipedia:CRITERIA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Franco-German border. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Pilaz ( talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I would like you to undo your close of Talk:Franco-Italian border and Talk:Austro-Italian border and relist both, for the following reasons:
As I noted on my talk page, I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across all bilateral relations, since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the WP:AT and still matters [...]. The closer continues to say that all five criteria should be considered when making a decision on article titles (which is basically a rephrasing of WP:CRITERIA, which I agree with) and does not prohibit the use of CONSISTENT;
Given the list above, I believe you gave inappropriate weight to the argument of one participant, based on an incorrect reading of an RfC whose scope is very likely much narrower, and whose unknowns could have been elucidated by the closer, hence going against the spirit of the "Determining consensus" section of WP:RMCI. Pilaz ( talk) 18:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC) further edits Pilaz ( talk) 18:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.Me preferring the current title by giving more weight to CONSISTENCY (a criterion) over COMMONNAME (an indicator) after having considered all five criteria is perfectly within the boundaries of WP:AT policy. Supporting diff
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
What do you make of Talk:Easy Jet (horse)#Requested move 22 November 2022 and Talk:Easy Jet (horse)#Requested move 12 October 2015?
So it seems quite clear at least the horse shouldn't have been at the base name. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
What do you make of Talk:Electric battery#Requested move 25 December 2022? @ Amakuru: it seems very much like the Fan discussion in 2018. Most people opposed though 1 opposed only due to it being not worth the change and another appeared to oppose only the specific title. Like the Fan discussion it seems quite clear that the term "electric battery" is not common so is not suitable for natural disambiguation even if recognizable it is not really accurate as "battery" is overwhelmingly used. Do you think the community consensus was reflected there? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
UCRN literally states Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...: yes, generally, but in this case we can't, because "battery" is ambiguous. You can think of it as a descriptive title if you need a policy justification to sleep at night. Now can we move on to something that matters, please? VQuakr ( talk) 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I know there are some refs. mentioned below, but I do not know which reference sources which phrase. Would be great if you as the article creator could help out. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a consensus against the move but "no consensus" seems more appropriate. While I agree Nohomersryan's pageviews point to keeping it as is I'd point that you're point that "There is no ambiguity to disambiguate since the titles in question are already naturally disambiguated" isn't grounded in policy, WP:ATDAB/ WP:PRECISE generally requires us to use complete disambiguation even if other articles have different tiles. Regarding SMALLDETAILS that was presented by both sides I'd point out that the absence of "The" doesn't "indicate a distinct topic" since the title without "The" is the simplest form given most things that formerly have "The Name" are normally indexed as "Name, The" per WP:SORTKEY. Think about the Airplane! example the presence of the "!" indicates the film as a distinct topic but the absence of it doesn't though the generic meaning is primary anyway. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the ratios aren’t quantified it’s a judgement call. In the judgement of this closer, 25:1 qualifies as “much more likely” by any reasonable standard, even with a higher PTM bar. I mean, even twice as likely is arguably “much more likely”. 5x more likely is definitely “much more likely”. 25x shouldn’t be questionable at all. And of course 12x (25k vs 1k + 1k = 25:2 = 12:1) meets the “more likely than all others combined” bar. The point of PT even for PTMs is not to use it only when the other uses are very unlikely to be sought at all. The likelihood to be sought only has to be much more likely than any other topic (and more likely than the others combined) for a given user to warrant PT treatment.
Consider the two measures. In order to be merely more likely than the others combined, the PT candidate only has to be sought slightly more than half the time. So for three topics 52/24/24 meets the bar. Here we have about 93/4/4 (25k:1k:1k). If that’s not PT, what is? —- В²C ☎ 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of List of leaders of Georgia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Here's this for formality's sake, cheers! estar8806 ( talk) ★ 20:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Born2cycle, I hope you're doing well.
I just wanted to come here and discuss your closure of the Talk:List of leaders of Georgia#Requested move 11 July 2023. You said that opposition does not have the policy because we claimed ambiguity when we didn't cite a potential other candidate when we very clearly identified Governor of Georgia as a potential case for confusion. This was a clear-as-day supervote, so I hope you'll consider reverting your decision or at least relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 11:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ SmokeyJoe,
Instead of responding at the RM or even on your talk page, I though I’d do it on my own talk page and tag you. Hope that’s okay. At Talk:List of leaders of Georgia (country)#Requested move 11 July 2023 you recently submitted a comment that I think exemplifies the main difference in our perspectives about title decision-making on WP. You wrote:
Unless I’m mistaken, you’re the only editor on WP with an antipathy of hatnotes as demonstrated by the uniquely-held view that a user merely seeing “a hatnote to something they didn’t want” is an inconvenience. The WP community’s embracing of hatnotes is made obvious by their ubiquitous presence in myriads of articles, not to mention explicit endorsement in policy.
Asserting there is no PT without anchoring such a claim to PT determination criteria is meaningless. Do you have a policy-based argument to oppose this proposal?
In a follow-up comment you reveal an apparent disagreement with policy, which may explain why your arguments are not based in policy:
Title policy is established for us to have titles that are most helpful to readers.
What I see here is a rationalization to IAR title policy rules, especially primary topic, because (you believe) they favor ease of wiki-linking for editors over serving readers.
What you seem to ignore, repeatedly and consistently, is that the primary topic usage criteria is based on what users are most likely seeking when they search with the title in question. In this case we are asked to consider a hypothetical user who searches with “List of leaders of Georgia”. What is the likelihood they’re looking for governors of the US state of Georgia vs leaders of the country named Georgia? Perhaps you saw @ Amakuru’s recent !vote? where they addressed this question directly: “The governor of Georgia is never referred to as the ‘leader of Georgia’”.
Of course, technically the governor is the leader, but the point here is that in normal English usage governors are not referred to as “leaders” and therefore the likelihood that anyone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia” is looking for the list of governors is practically nil. Do you not agree with that? Why?
So how is this not a clear primary topic? How are users not helped by being taken directly to the page they’re seeking rather than to a dab page? In what scenario is a user inconvenienced by having this article at the undisambiguated base name?
I’m tagging @ Huwmanbeing because I’m similarly genuinely perplexed by their similar position on this title and PT in general as well.
Thx, В²C ☎ 13:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
What do you make of the following recent RM discussions on US state capitals?
Which ones would you have supported? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)