![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
If a RM is made and there is no comment beyond the proposal and creators response within 7 days, would the nomination be considered WP:STALE and could be safely closed by anyone? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 07:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@ User:The C of E If an user makes a request with an RM. It is either because the user can not move the page themselves, or because they think it is controversial or potentially controversial. Therefore the nominator ought not to close it but wait for another editor to close if for them.
@ JFG and TonyBallioni, I think it is totally unnecessary to relist it, instead it should be closed and unless the closer has reasons for opposing the move for policy reasons, it should be moved. This is after all what the tab at the top is for. Moving a page is not like deleting one. If someone comes along later they can always request a move back or a move to an alternative page title. -- PBS ( talk) 12:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
My name is Curtis Felt. My late father, Dick Felt, has a wiki page generated by some source, not by me or my family. My father's nick name is being targeted by vandals and I'm getting tired of it. His birth name is Richard George Felt. "Dick" was a nickname given to him when it was common to use for Richard. However, it's use today is more associated with a male body part and as a derogatory slang word. I would like to have his wiki page title changed from Dick Felt to Richard Felt to cut down on search engine hits that would prompt people to vandalize this site. Your site takes great effort to remove uncivil comments from pages, and i appreciate that. Thank you for your consideration. Curtis Felt ( talk) 00:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC). Done. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, "technical requests" are used to sneak through an undiscussed and inappropriate rename ( Mace (weapon) to Mace (bludgeon)). Maces aren't simple bludgeons, they're substantially somewhat sharp, developed as an armour-piercing weapon. Also this form has clear primacy as the primary topic for "weapon", the pepper spray and missile being references to it.
We need to stop these. At the very least, a rename like this ought to require tagging on the article first, not merely on this page. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. Well, I guess to watch the page, you could just go to WP:RM and click on the technical-moves section. This requires a positive action rather than waiting for a notification, but if an editor made it part of their regular routine, it would only take a few seconds each session to check, and perhaps a couple minutes to move inappropriate requests. This is a kludge though.
For this to work, we would probably have to add an admonition on the order of "admins should not peform technical moves until X hours have elapsed since the request", with X being 24 or 72 or whatever.
Alternatively, perhaps we should tighten up the guidance, adding the bolded language shown below to the top of the "Requesting technical moves" (text bolded to show the change, not intended to be bolded on the actual page):
How's that? Herostratus ( talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
When the section technical requests was set up I opposed it. I see no reason why those need to be expedited. I think it was better to have just a requested move process. There is little reason why a change in capitalisation is so important that a move can not wait a week while the RM process runs it course. -- PBS ( talk) 09:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure.
And so hmnh I see regarding the above example that User:Anthony Appleyard accepted the technical request and moved "Instruction set" to "Instruction set architecture"... this may be OK on the merits, but... before making the move the editors changed the lede from
to
and the page move locks that in...Which fine, and it may be a big improvement (who knows?), but it is surely more than a spelling correction. If some of the people watching the page don't agree with this change, what are their options? Move it back and initiate a WP:RM discussion? This suggests that WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are indeed operative for page moves, at least for technical requests... which seems to go against the discussions above.
Maybe its supposed to be like WP:CSD, where one person makes the request but an admin reviews it and decides? Does this happen? We need User:Anthony Appleyard or other admins to describe what their mindset is in approaching technical moves... is it, like CSD, "I agree, so it shall be done"? This is quite a bit of rather arbitrary admin decision power over a content question, isn't it? Of course admins are especially vetted, but aren't considered supereditors for content purposes.
The big questions I have are simple and I still don't have, but need, the answers:
@ Herostratus "OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure." That does not mean it has to be kept. It still has the same problems it had originally had, so what are the advantages of keeping it? -- PBS ( talk) 08:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
OK I get it. I moved a couple of technical requests to contested-technical. Process is a little kludgy and underdocumented. Couple questions I have:
"whichever MOS argument finally settled the issue." There is no consensus for any MOS guideline to dictate article titles that is done through the article title policy and its naming conventions. -- PBS ( talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What is the advantage of having an expedited section for technical requests? Why not just have one requests section? Those pages that are not contentious will be moved after the usual time it takes from moves to work through the system. It fails safe, unlike the current method of having two streams (one of which is expedited) which as this section attests can fail and cause problems. -- PBS ( talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Request early close for Trump Tower: A Novel to ---> Trump Tower (novel).
I've thought about it and it's not really a big deal.
We are now unanimous in support of the move.
I was the only one opposing it, so no longer controversial.
Please can someone move it early, and close the move discussion at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#Requested_move_20_June_2017 ?
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Team Wiki,
My name is Shriya Gautam and I am the founder of an archaeological study group based in India called Speaking Archaeologically. Three days ago, our IT team tried to host our page on Wiki, listing the platforms we are on, and the goals and objectives of the group, as well as the memberships we allow. All this was backed up using citations and references relevant to the content, including e-journal and web-links.
However, our account was banned on the pretext that the username was "too organisation-like." We have now swapped our account but you won't let us paste the content we had used.
Please, get back to us at the earliest so, that the problems can be resolved.
Archaeologysoldier (
talk)
10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Shriya Gautam
There is a page where an RfC to move a very controversial page name has been initiated ( ISIL). This needs to be converted into an RM process because the RM process has better instructions on how to close and a much better process for handling the inevitable questions that follow closes of move for this page.
I can remove the RfC header (easy), but how do I add a RM header to the top of an existing section new that there is a new template and process for adding it to the bottom of the page. -- PBS ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This guideline may be affected by an RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures. Please comment there. — JFG talk 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to make a request for an editor who did not participate in the move survey to please close the disussion at the above page. Thank you. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 21:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to request closure on a requested move in the Talk page above. An editor has gone ahead and made the moves uncontroversially. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 00:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Today there have been several requests at WP:RM/TR by TakuyaMurata to move his drafts to different names or return mainspace pages to draftspace. ErikHaugen and myself declined these requests and did not create procedural RMs: my reasoning is that this seems to be a draftspace dispute, and the return of articles to draft once an experienced editor has published them to mainspace is typically only handled through AfD, and things that are already at MfD should likely be handled there.
I am pinging all the people who have been involved with this as well as some of the regulars at RM/TR for their opinions @ Legacypac, Hasteur, Anthony Appleyard, Alex Shih, EdJohnston, RileyBugz, SkyWarrior, and JJMC89: all of your thoughts on how to handle such requests in the future would be appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
what if a draft was moved to a mainspace in the bad faith?of 20:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC). They assume that what I did was in bad faith. I took a look at every one of those pages and asked myself the simple question: Does this have at least a 50% chance of surviving in mainspace? If it does, it gets promoted to mainspace so that other editors can see it and make improvements. If it doesn't I consider the various tools we have for resolving the issue ("Merge and Redirect", MfD, and CSD:G13) and apply the one that provides the best outcome to Wikipedia's purpose). Hasteur ( talk) 02:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A scenario that isn't specifically covered at WP:RMCI. I started a discussion at WT:Page mover#Page movers implementing a primary topic. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. Notifying here because we've been getting a lot of RMs on this recently. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This bit:
All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure.
conflicts with general NAC treatment (aside from RM in particular); anyone is free to revert a boneheaded NAC. It's not even clear that the wording above is intended to prohibit that, but it is definitely sometimes interpreted that way. The reason to revert a boneheaded NAC is because it was boneheaded, not because it was NA.
Because of the special technicalities involved, this should probably say something like:
All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR). Additionally, anyone may revert an NAC that has not already resulted in a move, given good reasons to do so. The mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure. If a move has already resulted, the MR process must be used.
The bit that immediately follows that already explains the technical considerations.
This would obviate the need to open tedious MRs for obvious cases of bad closes (e.g. clearly ignoring of the actual consensus, or closing with a statement that makes it unmistakable that the closer is WP:SUPERVOTING to change what the outcome would have been had a neutral party closed it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am an interested party and would like to request a relisting of the RM discussion at Talk:Chishmy (urban-type settlement), Chishminsky District, Republic of Bashkortostan. The original RM was closed, then reopened but was not relisted for further input at that time. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Can someone give an easy example on the page of what coding to use for an RM? The examples are a bit complicated. And on the RM page itself, there is an easy example for uncontroversial coding right on the coding of the page, but not for a "controversial" RM, maybe add it there too? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Single and multi-page cases
|
---|
{{subst:Rm|OldPageName|NewPageName|reason=Your rationale here.}} {{subst:Rm |current1=OldPageName1 |new1=NewPageName1 |current2=OldPageName2 |new2=NewPageName2 |reason=Your rationale here.}} }} Parameter {{{1}}} a.k.a {{para|current1}} is optional as long as the Rm template is used on the talk page of that article. In each case the Rm template will both create a heading for you and add your sig (unless you use optional parameters that tell it not to). The easiest way to use these is to edit the entire talk page, put the template at the bottom, do "Show preview", copy-paste the auto-generated, dated RM heading name into the "Edit summary" form field, and then save the page. |
It doesn't have a template identifying what kind of page it is. Thinker78 ( talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently there's a button somewhere that resets WP:RM/TR to an empty state, and in the process reverts the improvement that I did. See where I put it back, and discussion at User_talk:Philg88#Section_header_at_WP:RM.2FTR with the guy who pushed the button but doesn't know how it works. Can someone review this, and find the code and make it better please? Dicklyon ( talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a fan of the section header, Dicklyon. If someone wanted to move an RM from uncontested to contested, they could just use the general "Edit source" button. This new section header isn't needed. Sky Warrior 01:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm back from a few months away and I'm wondering what the general opinion was about relisting at RM. My impression (no stats to back it up) is that relisting is becoming increasingly common, especially relisting a specific discussion for a second or even third time. I have always thought that every relist gets diminishing returns and a rough rule of thumb should be to only relist a second time with a very good reason and almost never relist a third time. While it's good to have the backlog area clear, there is generally no harm in having a handful of 'hard' discussions in there – it draws attention not only from potential closers but also people willing to chime in with their opinion and possibly help get the discussion towards a consensus.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. What are yours? Jenks24 ( talk) 02:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone moved Mini to Mini (1959-2000), a bold move which overrides a similar request from five years ago. I tried to revert it so that the discussion can take place yet again, but cannot revert it for some reason. I would be thankful for some assistance. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone help me how I change the name of a specific article? Bryggeriet Vestfyens Arena must be renamed Odense Isstadion. JonasJepsen ( talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I performed an edit to reflect what the no consensus policy actually says, but now the information after that edit doesn't correlate very well with the change, because it departs from the previous statement, which was wrong because WP:NOCON didn't say what the statement said -at least it doesn't say that currently. I think then the info after my edit should be reworded or deleted, unless someone knows of a no consensus policy that says that if there is no consensus on a move, an article title that has been stable for a long time is kept, and if you know, please link to said policy and edit accordingly. I have to mention that I'm aware of WP:TITLECHANGES, that says " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title", but doesn't specifically mentions what happens when there is no consensus and the title has been stable. Thinker78 ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's say a user unilaterally moves some article to a new title, without going through RM, even though it is a controversial move (maybe it's a borderline primary topic situation, for example). Does reverting that unilateral controversial move count as a controversial move requiring a week+ long discussion to see whether consensus can be established to support the revert? What about no consensus ever being established for the initial unilateral move?
It seems to me that it should be acceptable to include reverts of contested recent unilateral moves in the "uncontested technical moves" section. That is, even though the revert is also known to be controversial, if it's to revert another controversial move that should have gone through RM in the first place, that should be okay.
Or, if the immediate revert is not done, and neither consensus to keep the move nor to revert the move is established in a subsequent RM proposal to revert the move, then the initial move should be reverted (for not having consensus support).
For example:
Questions:
Consider: In any discussion only a tiny fraction of the community is participating. The whole point of defaulting to the status quo when no consensus is found in a given discussion is to err on the side of assuming community consensus supported the status quo. In this case, even though consensus for Foo the thingy being the primary topic by those involved in the discussion could not be found, aren't we supposed to err on the side of the previous established consensus (prior to the unilateral move)? That Foo the thingy was the primary topic per community consensus? By the same token, should that move have been executed in Step 4 as requested? Why or why not?
Actual example from today of a contested technical request to revert a unilateral controversial move [2]. Original unilateral move was reverted nonetheless [3]. (thankfully)
Here's another recent actual example (discussed above) of a revert of a unilateral move: Talk:Mini#Name_of_this_article:_Mini_.281959.E2.80.932000.29_instead_of_Mini
-- В²C ☎ 05:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I updated the Closing Instructions to reflect what we all seem to agree upon above [4]. Any objections? Please edit/adjust as you see fit. -- В²C ☎ 17:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, putting it in the lead is correct. My mistake. I did see it in your above comment, and was just pointing out that we already do have it discussed in RMCI, and I think that document is fine for now. Sorry if it didn't seem that way. Hopefully putting it on the main RM page as information about what current practice is will make this more clear. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi - this is where the discussion and agreement can be found for the change [8] you reverted [9] ("edits to guideline and policy related pages should be discussed and agreed") and I un-reverted [10] ("This edit has been discussed and only restates more visibly what the agreed practice already is"). Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 21:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
My personal opinion: if someone makes a good faith request to revert a unilateral move from the last say three months (time period a bit arbitrary I admit), then it should be actioned, regardless of what you the admin reviewing it think of it. Then you can notify the editor who has made the initial bold move and they can start a RM from a 'clean' position, i.e. the closing admin does not have to try and work out what is the status quo title in the event of a no consensus close. The only exceptions I can think to this general rule would be BLP issues, articles that have suddenly become very high traffic due to a news event, and titles that are blatantly incorrect (i.e. fails WP:V). It has been a source of frustration for me over the years that some of the people who monitor RM/TR – and generally do a great job at a largely thankless task – approach this issue in a somewhat ad hoc manner, where they will revert moves they personally disagree with but refuse to revert moves they agree with and instead start a RM. If we could have crystal clear process on this I think it would makes things easier for people who use RM/TR from both requester and actioner perspectives. The way I envision it, we will occasionally see reverts to titles that are obviously not going to hold up at RM because they e.g. go clearly against a naming convention. But occasionally having one week at a slightly subpar title is a small price to pay for everyone involved in the process to feel like they are getting natural justice. Jenks24 ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: When User:Jenks24 relist request moves with adding Relisted, RMCD bot did not mark these discussion as relist on WP:RMCD. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The bot looks for an exact match to --'''''Relisting.'''''
to allow for that word to be used in a move rationale without mistaking it for a relisting. The template is a handy way to conform to the specified syntax. I could make the search string less unique, at the risk of finding false-positives. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking the rest of the weekend off. I might make further tweaks Monday to allow for simple italic relistings rather than require boldfaced italic. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
<small>--'''''{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|+}}}|{{{1|-}}}|Relisted.|Relisting.}}''''' ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~</small><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>
Should it be incumbent on the closer of a requested move discussion to fix any dablinks that may arise from their close? E.g. when the consensus is to move Example to Example (example) and Example (disambiguation) to the recently vacated Example, creating a lot of dablinks to fix. My thinking has always been (as both a closer and nominator) that it is the responsibility of those supporting the RM, especially whoever proposed it, to fix the dab links rather than the person who happens to read the discussion and assess the consensus. If the closer wants to help out, great – but it should not be part of what is required. Closing a requested move discussion is already a more time and labour expensive exercise than closing any other consensus-finding process on Wikipedia that I can think of, and insisting that the closer fix in some cases hundreds of dablinks on top of what they've already done seems a severe disincentive to closing discussions.
For the discussion that prompted me to start this topic see Talk:Bark (botany)#Requested move 27 November 2017. Pinging Narky Blert who I disagreed with there and also R'n'B who recently reverted an edit I made to change a redirect to point to a dab as a result of an RM close (see Family Channel) – I take it they will have a different opinion to me. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
// Cleanup links to disambiguation pages (run it at the DAB page in question)
importScript('User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js]]
What do we do when a move request is closed after discussion, and then an identical proposal is made within a short period of time? Should they be speedily closed? If not, should participants in the previous recent discussion be notified (as an exception to canvassing)? Should the previous discussion be taken into account by the closer? I've run into this situation twice recently, at Talk:Thomas M. Davis and currently and more importantly at Talk:Richard B. Spencer. - Station1 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
RE https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=815317718
Tom Wolf (politician) (currently a redirect to Tom Wolf) → Tom Wolf ( move · discuss) – Tom Wolf, which is simpler and easier to link to, already redirects to the article's current title, Tom Wolf (politician). Page would have to moved over a redirect. Scanlan ( talk) 03:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
performed by TonyBallioni ( talk · contribs)
04:00, 14 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+39) . . N Tom Wolf (politician) (TonyBallioni moved page Tom Wolf (politician) to Tom Wolf: Requested by Scanlan at WP:RM/TR: Tom Wolf, which is simpler and easier to link to, already redirects to the article's current title, Tom Wolf (polit...)
I would think that if an RM was previously proposed and was unsuccessful, that it should be ineligible for listing as an Uncontroversial technical request. While in this case, I would not contest the move again (previously, he was a mere candidate), I think in principle quiet ( Talk:Tom Wolf is very quiet) uncontroversial technical requests should not be entertained when the previous RM was unsuccessful. It is damaging to community respect for RM procedures. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
So the move discussion that I initiated at Talk:Arden railway station, Melbourne was closed as no consensus. I want to make it perfectly clear from the outset that I have no issue with Bradv or his close, so by my understanding move review is not an appropriate forum. However, I think it's important in this situation where the name of the entity in question has actually changed (both officially and in RS) that we at least get a consensus on the issue for the good of Wikipedia, even if that consensus is not to move.
What is the next step to take here? FWIW, if I renominated for a move I'd make the nomination for Arden railway station, Melbourne to North Melbourne railway station (Arden), since in the weeks since the original nom the press and official sources have adopted this disambiguator. Or is the best step a more widely publicised RFC with multiple options? Triptothecottage ( talk) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Random question - Is there any reason as to why the underline in "Discuss" is under the "scu"? .... It looks odd ?, Thanks, – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The link for "Uncontroversial technical requests" doesn't seem to work. I want to move the article 'Moto Gymkhana' to 'Motogymkhana' as that is the official name of the sport. X10 ( talk) 10:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: I have made a proposal to add a reference to Wikipedia:Requested moves to the page move dialogue, at MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext#Proposal to add reference to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please feel free to weigh in there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking those should be permissible here, in WP:RM/TR, rather than being sent to CfD (there is no WP:CFDS criterion for reversing undiscussed category renames, so they'll always end up being lengthy discussions when they should simply be reversible as out-of-process. Given the formality of WP:CFD, where even "speedy" renames take a week, there basically is no condition under which going around renaming categories on a whim is okay, even if you're capable of cleaning up after it. If something is, say, a foul-mouthed attack category, that's just a speedy deletion candidate, not a speedy renaming one. It basically just should not be happening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I want to request to move this page into this, however there are some problems. Just hard to get in though. How to do it and how to move? Sincerely ( User talk:ZaDoraemonzu7) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC+8)
We currently have a group of 5 RM discussions that all have the same set of comments because they're all on the same issue. Is there a process that allows merging them into a multi-RM discussion, or do I need to repeat myself on every one?
And judging by the names, I'd guess a bunch more where these came from. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I pinged the 5 involved and told them I'm starting a new multi-RM, which I have now done; hopefully none of them object and we can just delete the old 5. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think per WP:LISTNAME, articles in Category:National records in Olympic weightlifting should be moved. Example: "Albanian records in Olympic weightlifting" → "List of Albanian records in Olympic weightlifting". Anybody up for it? -- Pelmeen10 ( talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See this. I really shouldn't have opened the RM in the first place, since if I did a thorough check I would have noticed that the only reason I couldn't perform the move myself was that the page was moved by another editor a few months back. When I did I pinged the editor who had moved the page, and they supported my proposed title, but the following day a non-admin relisted it because it was "just starting to be seen by others" (even though the only outside comment had been specifically invited and was a support); it seems extremely unlikely that anyone will oppose even now that it has been relisted, but now I'm worried that another non-admin will come along and close it as "no consensus to move to proposed title" -- it seems outlandish, but so did a non-admin relisting an unopposed technical request to allow for more discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The RM process is botched. Only a few editors bother to go onto article talk pages; that means that only a few users contribute to RM discussions. Let XFD handle move discussions; that part of Wikipedia actually has !votes involving more than 3 users. KMF ( talk) 01:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Over time, I've gradually increased the number of notifications sent out by my
RMCD bot... to relevant WikiProject talk pages, when they aren't subscribed to article alerts... to talk pages of the targets of the requested move, when those exist and aren't redirects... to the top of the articles themselves. Perhaps sending talk page messages to the major contributors of the article
is the last frontier for RMCD bot-generated notices... I'm not sure how much that would help, but I'll keep that idea on my back burner... unless there is a groundswell of demand for that. Personally, I contribute my share of participation in this area, but if I took the time to comment on every RM discussion, I wouldn't have much time left to get anything else done. And a lot of my "anything elses" are areas where there is even less participation than there is at RM. And regarding XFD, I very rarely take time to participate there.
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This was triggered by
this move review of
the RM of {{
refimprove}}
. There is nothing wrong with the RM process for articles. However, I am open to the idea that there should be a different process for templates, since that's an entirely different set of standards. The assertion that
WP:RM was also for templates seems to originate in
this edit from 2006, and I couldn't find the discussion that led to that, if there was one. It seems to have been accepted without comment at the time, possibly because it was a very natural outgrowth of the technical aspect of the pre-RM state of affairs, which was "if you can't move it yourself, find an admin and ask them to move it". However, these days the vast majority of requested moves are decided on
WP:Article titles-related factors. I wonder if
WP:Templates for discussion wouldn't be a better place for template re-titling discussions. Cheers, --
Aervanath (
talk)
08:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if there is some technical limitation and this has been discussed in the past. Is there a reason the bot has formatted the number of relisted discussions like this — (Discuss)ions —with parentheses, capitalization, and part of the word underlined? It looks like this has been in place since the addition to the page last May, but I presume changing it requires changes to the bot. Dekimasu よ! 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly not happening. ( closed by page mover) Sky Warrior 17:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Proposed moves – The title is consistent with Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Determining the community's top choice for the title at Sarah Jane Brown has been challenging for a number of reasons, for years. I'm hoping to propose a multi-choice approach to get this resolved, once and for all. My approach is in draft form right now, and would appreciate some input and suggestions. See Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/table. Thanks -- В²C ☎ 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The reception for having participants edit a table was less than lukewarm. That's abandoned. Instead, I'm proposing we list the choices and have people express their preferences and reasons accordingly. Details here: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Next step? Better? Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
My god... we started arguing about the title of that article over 10 years ago... and we are STILL arguing about it? That has to be a record of some sort. Blueboar ( talk) 01:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record and for future reference, what Francis Schonken did there is probably the best way to go. He simply created a separate subsection for each candidate title, so everyone could comment on each candidate separately. It seems to be working and definitely the approach I'll take in future similar situations, once a reasonable list of candidate titles titles has been established. I think the closer will have a reasonable chance at finding consensus without pulling out too much hair. -- В²C ☎ 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request that three uninvolved admins with plenty of RM experience form a panel to properly close the 12-choice multi-section cluster I helped create at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested_move_8_February_2018. It should be ready to go in a day or so. First three to sign up here "win"? -- В²C ☎ 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If we distinguish finding WP:CONSENSUS and "consensus" as follows:
I think it's safe to say that in most RMs it doesn't matter. For example, to randomly pick the first proposal in the Elapsed section right now, we have Talk:Billy_Harrison#Requested_move_22_February_2018, a strong policy-based proposal from Roman Spinner, and four !votes concurring. A typical no-brainer. The "consensus" is clearly in support of the proposal (in fact it's unanimous), and of course all policy-based points favor the proposal too, so it's reasonable to determine that the consensus of the community also favors the move.
Because in most RMs determining "consensus" of the participants and CONSENSUS of the community turns out to be the same, it's easy to conflate the two, and get in the habit of determining "consensus" instead of CONSENSUS. Let's face it, determining "consensus" is much easier and it feels natural. I mean, if, say 7 out of 10 oppose a proposal, how can you find the proposal being favored by the community? Well, you can, and should, if the only three !votes based in policy are the ones supporting it.
Distinguishing finding CONSENSUS and "consensus" is of course especially important in RMs where "consensus" and CONSENSUS are in conflict, which can happen for a variety of reasons, but usually involves WP:JDLI arguments with WP:NPOV totally ignored. Some excellent examples of this phenomenon are six of the seven RMs at Yoghurt that preceded the eighth one in which the proposal to move to Yogurt finally succeeded. In each of those earlier six in which the closer found "no consensus" the opposition was riddled with JDLI arguments which should have been discounted if not dismissed entirely in determining community CONSENSUS. In fact, the closer back in RM #2 (2006) actually did that, but was reverted 2 weeks later by another RM relying on "consensus" of the participants based on counting !votes rather than CONSENSUS of the community based on weighing strength of arguments. That particular dispute was unnecessarily stretched out for eight years thanks to closer after closer being reluctant to determine CONSENSUS overriding the "consensus" of those participating.
A more recent and perhaps more egregious example is the string of dubious closures at Sarah Jane Brown, including the one this week, in which again the closers deferred to the blatant NPOV-violating opposition to the "wife of ... " disambiguation that incorrectly claims "Sarah Jane Brown" to be WP:NATURALDIS (it's not because of the dearth of usage of SJB in reliable sources) and finds the "wife of Gordon Brown" parenthetic disambiguation to be inappropriate, offensive, etc., an obviously non-neutral stance, but unable to cite anything from reliable sources supporting this view. But these sources are riddled with examples identifying her in exactly those words, or very similar ones. And so the dispute there too remains unresolved, postponed again by a terrible decision based on "consensus" rather than WP:CONSENSUS.
But this isn't about SJB. My goal here is simply to bring this issue to the attention of closers, and to remind us all of what it says at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus:
In my opinion, that's not quite strong enough, because it suggests both should be given equal consideration. And that may be true in theory, but in practice, I think closers are far too reluctant to override consensus of the participants by consensus of the community "as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", whenever there is a conflict. And that's why we have ongoing unresolved disputes like Sarah Jane Brown.
Thanks, -- В²C ☎ 17:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I've been on the other side. After consensus was found at Sega Genesis, there was still some unrest about the title, and so I initiated and wrote most of this FAQ to help everyone understand how we go that title and why: Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. Check it out. This helps establish that the title is on firm ground with the community and, I believe, is much better than imposing an artificial moratorium on further proposals. A similar effort was made at Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. In other words, the proper way to build consensus and stable titles is with policy based argument and persuasion. It works. Counting raw !votes only works when the result happens to coincide with WP:CONSENSUS, which, for better or for worse, is most of the time. But in these special cases, a different approach is required.
By the way, here is a list of RMs with currently stable titles that went through a series of failed RMs before finally succeeding in a change to a stable and undisputed title:
Most of these could have been settled much earlier, sometimes years earlier, had the earlier closers paid more attention to CONSENSUS and policy than to consensus of the participants as indicated by counting raw !votes. -- В²C ☎ 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The other day I was listening to a talk about how Google self-driving cars work and someone asked about scenarios not anticipated in the software. The answer was very interesting, and, surprisingly, I think it applies to WP title decision-making. The idea is that they don't anticipate every possible scenario, but instead distill general principles of driving that can be applied effectively in any scenario, including scenarios not yet anticipated. The resistance to making title decision-making algorithmic based on the notion that it can't be algorithmic, though driving in infinitely unpredictable traffic can be, is absurd. We too can distill general principles - call them policies - and apply them objectively to all titles. If we have situations where the polices don't give us a clear-cut answer, then we've identified a problem in our policies. A self-driving car can't suddenly stop in traffic because its algorithms produce a muddled decision. If during testing they encounter such a situation, they address it by fixing the underlying principles. We should be doing the same. -- В²C ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
titles don't matter much." Great. So if the title of that biography about that woman with a very common name (common, as in a name shared with lots of other women, inherently causing traffic accidents amongst those women) doesn't matter very much, why do we need to have so many discussions to decide that title, and need to call in a team of elders to close the discussion? "
My interest is in a process that results in titles without conflicts (just like self-driving cars rely on a process that results in reaching destinations without collisions)." We already have such a process. It's called disambiguation. Hatnotes and disambiguation pages, when functioning properly allow readers to avoid collisions. Sarah Brown is such a roundabout. Readers drive around that roundabout until they see the link pointing to their desired article, at which point they leave the roundabout and follow that link. Does it really matter that much what the sign on the roundabout says, as long as the short description accompanying the link "
(born 1963), charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown" is sufficiently clear? Is our system perfect? No, it's not, or Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review would always be empty. We could use a few more volunteers to help keep that category cleared, as we haven't yet developed a bot (the wiki version of the self-driving car) to work that category. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.This might be the most arrogant thing I have ever read in regards to a move discussion. The community does not have to do anything in regards to a requested move: the presumption is that it will stay at a stable title: the obligation is on those wanting a move to achieve consensus. There wasn't even consensus a move was needed (and please don't go on the CONSENSUS vs "consensus" distinction: people considered your arguments and made counter arguments. This was also a community-wide RM advertised at CENT and BLPN which means that it had wide input from beyond the normal RM crowd who writes the guidelines, which almost certainly makes it more reflective of actual community consensus on the interpretation of the naming policy in this case than the small crowd who are RM regulars.) The community has consistently rejected a move for half a decade. In the other cases you could argue whether or not it was the specific title that caused people to reject it but this RM had probably every title available, and they still preferred the status quo: per the close, I think that there was a slight consensus to keep the stable title, not necessarily a consensus that it was the best, but a consensus that it would work and that repeated RMs were disruptive. Please drop the stick here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.What you mean is, you can't get your self-driving car to get out of the roundabout. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown. That translates to the parenthetical Sarah Brown (wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown) which we would shorten to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) if her husband did not require disambiguation. But, of course, this runs into the issues of "political correctness" and whether or not the Daily Mail is a RS. LOL. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.No, we just have to figure out how to get a small number of people to stop obsessing over moving the article away from a title that is 100% verifiably accurate, unambiguous and where there is no evidence it is considered a problem at all other than by them. B2C, your arrogance is incredible. You're basically saying that the whole of the rest of Wikipedia has to find a solution to a problem that most of them don't consider to be actually a problem, and do so to your personal satisfaction, otherwise you will keep bringing it up again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Guy ( Help!) 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"...still be just one source; no where near meeting the “commonly called” NATURALDIS hurdle.
"
This is flat-out wrong. An incorrect interpretation of
Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
She is commonly called
Sarah Jane Brown, albeit not as commonly as Sarah Brown. There is no "failure to pass a hurdle here". Title characteristics (e.g. "naturalness") should be seen as goals, not as rules
. Stop insisting that they be seen as rules. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.
Yes, she is less commonly called by her full name, much less commonly than she is called by just her first and last name. Because of this relatively weak case for natural disambiguation, a serious attempt was made to find a parenthetical alternative. Examination of sources leads to looking at Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), or "spouse", for consideration. This has been strongly rejected, for reasons I think you should understand. Similarly, Sarah Brown (born 1963) has also been rejected, though not as strongly. Taking a look at the Sarah Brown (disambiguation) page, the defacto parenthetical that would be acceptable would be Sarah Brown (charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown), but this is weak on the conciseness criterion. Unfortunately, unlike some of the past spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, she has no title like Countess, Duchess, Viscountess, Marchioness, or Baroness which would disambiguate. The British don't use " First Lady"; that role may be filled by Prince Philip. Someone made a pointy edit that bluntly shows why the community is having trouble with solely disambiguating based on some variant of "charity director" or "campaigner". Note that no other Prime Minister's spouse's name has parenthetical disambiguation. Having failed to find an acceptable parenthetical that doesn't seriously impair other criteria, the community has, perhaps reluctantly, fallen back on the natural disambiguation as the best of the less-than-ideal options. Should another woman named Sarah Jane Brown become sufficiently notable to challenge this one for primary topic status, well, we'll wait to deal with that problem until it actually arises. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who may be interested, this example from 2009 ( Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move) demonstrates what a CONSENSUS overrides "consensus" decision looks like. This one sentence from the close tells it all:
I think it's likely that this wise close by Fuhghettaboutit averted multiple repeated attempts to move and its place in the list above. There was one more attempt to move back, in 2016 ( Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move_11_January_2016), but it was shutdown by "consensus" as well as CONSENSUS, which is exactly what I see happening every time CONSENSUS is recognized to trump "consensus" like this. -- В²C ☎ 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps against my better judgement as at this point my confidence in settling this is shattered...
...the closers deferred to the blatant NPOV-violating opposition that incorreclty (sic) claims "(name redacted)" to be WP:NATURALDIS
... Again, I fail to understand how using a person's full first, middle and last name as indisputably documented and confirmed by primary sources expresses a "point-of-view" about that person. Titling a biography using a person's own name is about as neutral as you can get, with perhaps very few exceptions. In contrast, when a person is known for A, B, C and D we are expressing a point-of-view about that person when we title it with parentheticals like (A), (B), (C), (D), (A and B), (A and C), (A, B and C) or (A, B, C and D).
How do we balance this conflicting advice and have an article title that is both concise and NPOV? I can't think of a better way in a BLP than to just use their full name.
I think I hear Blueboar (two subsections above). Try to keep this section theoretical, as specific examples aren't helping with understanding this. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the discussion here has run its course, as it's getting repetitive and we can't keep a high-level discussion about (A) from degenerating into something more specific.
FYI. Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS. – wbm1058 ( talk) 13:14, 6 March 2018 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
If a RM is made and there is no comment beyond the proposal and creators response within 7 days, would the nomination be considered WP:STALE and could be safely closed by anyone? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 07:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@ User:The C of E If an user makes a request with an RM. It is either because the user can not move the page themselves, or because they think it is controversial or potentially controversial. Therefore the nominator ought not to close it but wait for another editor to close if for them.
@ JFG and TonyBallioni, I think it is totally unnecessary to relist it, instead it should be closed and unless the closer has reasons for opposing the move for policy reasons, it should be moved. This is after all what the tab at the top is for. Moving a page is not like deleting one. If someone comes along later they can always request a move back or a move to an alternative page title. -- PBS ( talk) 12:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
My name is Curtis Felt. My late father, Dick Felt, has a wiki page generated by some source, not by me or my family. My father's nick name is being targeted by vandals and I'm getting tired of it. His birth name is Richard George Felt. "Dick" was a nickname given to him when it was common to use for Richard. However, it's use today is more associated with a male body part and as a derogatory slang word. I would like to have his wiki page title changed from Dick Felt to Richard Felt to cut down on search engine hits that would prompt people to vandalize this site. Your site takes great effort to remove uncivil comments from pages, and i appreciate that. Thank you for your consideration. Curtis Felt ( talk) 00:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC). Done. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yet again, "technical requests" are used to sneak through an undiscussed and inappropriate rename ( Mace (weapon) to Mace (bludgeon)). Maces aren't simple bludgeons, they're substantially somewhat sharp, developed as an armour-piercing weapon. Also this form has clear primacy as the primary topic for "weapon", the pepper spray and missile being references to it.
We need to stop these. At the very least, a rename like this ought to require tagging on the article first, not merely on this page. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. Well, I guess to watch the page, you could just go to WP:RM and click on the technical-moves section. This requires a positive action rather than waiting for a notification, but if an editor made it part of their regular routine, it would only take a few seconds each session to check, and perhaps a couple minutes to move inappropriate requests. This is a kludge though.
For this to work, we would probably have to add an admonition on the order of "admins should not peform technical moves until X hours have elapsed since the request", with X being 24 or 72 or whatever.
Alternatively, perhaps we should tighten up the guidance, adding the bolded language shown below to the top of the "Requesting technical moves" (text bolded to show the change, not intended to be bolded on the actual page):
How's that? Herostratus ( talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
When the section technical requests was set up I opposed it. I see no reason why those need to be expedited. I think it was better to have just a requested move process. There is little reason why a change in capitalisation is so important that a move can not wait a week while the RM process runs it course. -- PBS ( talk) 09:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure.
And so hmnh I see regarding the above example that User:Anthony Appleyard accepted the technical request and moved "Instruction set" to "Instruction set architecture"... this may be OK on the merits, but... before making the move the editors changed the lede from
to
and the page move locks that in...Which fine, and it may be a big improvement (who knows?), but it is surely more than a spelling correction. If some of the people watching the page don't agree with this change, what are their options? Move it back and initiate a WP:RM discussion? This suggests that WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are indeed operative for page moves, at least for technical requests... which seems to go against the discussions above.
Maybe its supposed to be like WP:CSD, where one person makes the request but an admin reviews it and decides? Does this happen? We need User:Anthony Appleyard or other admins to describe what their mindset is in approaching technical moves... is it, like CSD, "I agree, so it shall be done"? This is quite a bit of rather arbitrary admin decision power over a content question, isn't it? Of course admins are especially vetted, but aren't considered supereditors for content purposes.
The big questions I have are simple and I still don't have, but need, the answers:
@ Herostratus "OK well 2006 is 11 years ago, so it is certainly accepted procedure." That does not mean it has to be kept. It still has the same problems it had originally had, so what are the advantages of keeping it? -- PBS ( talk) 08:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
OK I get it. I moved a couple of technical requests to contested-technical. Process is a little kludgy and underdocumented. Couple questions I have:
"whichever MOS argument finally settled the issue." There is no consensus for any MOS guideline to dictate article titles that is done through the article title policy and its naming conventions. -- PBS ( talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What is the advantage of having an expedited section for technical requests? Why not just have one requests section? Those pages that are not contentious will be moved after the usual time it takes from moves to work through the system. It fails safe, unlike the current method of having two streams (one of which is expedited) which as this section attests can fail and cause problems. -- PBS ( talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Request early close for Trump Tower: A Novel to ---> Trump Tower (novel).
I've thought about it and it's not really a big deal.
We are now unanimous in support of the move.
I was the only one opposing it, so no longer controversial.
Please can someone move it early, and close the move discussion at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#Requested_move_20_June_2017 ?
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Team Wiki,
My name is Shriya Gautam and I am the founder of an archaeological study group based in India called Speaking Archaeologically. Three days ago, our IT team tried to host our page on Wiki, listing the platforms we are on, and the goals and objectives of the group, as well as the memberships we allow. All this was backed up using citations and references relevant to the content, including e-journal and web-links.
However, our account was banned on the pretext that the username was "too organisation-like." We have now swapped our account but you won't let us paste the content we had used.
Please, get back to us at the earliest so, that the problems can be resolved.
Archaeologysoldier (
talk)
10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Shriya Gautam
There is a page where an RfC to move a very controversial page name has been initiated ( ISIL). This needs to be converted into an RM process because the RM process has better instructions on how to close and a much better process for handling the inevitable questions that follow closes of move for this page.
I can remove the RfC header (easy), but how do I add a RM header to the top of an existing section new that there is a new template and process for adding it to the bottom of the page. -- PBS ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This guideline may be affected by an RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures. Please comment there. — JFG talk 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to make a request for an editor who did not participate in the move survey to please close the disussion at the above page. Thank you. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 21:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to request closure on a requested move in the Talk page above. An editor has gone ahead and made the moves uncontroversially. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 00:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Today there have been several requests at WP:RM/TR by TakuyaMurata to move his drafts to different names or return mainspace pages to draftspace. ErikHaugen and myself declined these requests and did not create procedural RMs: my reasoning is that this seems to be a draftspace dispute, and the return of articles to draft once an experienced editor has published them to mainspace is typically only handled through AfD, and things that are already at MfD should likely be handled there.
I am pinging all the people who have been involved with this as well as some of the regulars at RM/TR for their opinions @ Legacypac, Hasteur, Anthony Appleyard, Alex Shih, EdJohnston, RileyBugz, SkyWarrior, and JJMC89: all of your thoughts on how to handle such requests in the future would be appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
what if a draft was moved to a mainspace in the bad faith?of 20:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC). They assume that what I did was in bad faith. I took a look at every one of those pages and asked myself the simple question: Does this have at least a 50% chance of surviving in mainspace? If it does, it gets promoted to mainspace so that other editors can see it and make improvements. If it doesn't I consider the various tools we have for resolving the issue ("Merge and Redirect", MfD, and CSD:G13) and apply the one that provides the best outcome to Wikipedia's purpose). Hasteur ( talk) 02:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A scenario that isn't specifically covered at WP:RMCI. I started a discussion at WT:Page mover#Page movers implementing a primary topic. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. Notifying here because we've been getting a lot of RMs on this recently. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This bit:
All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure.
conflicts with general NAC treatment (aside from RM in particular); anyone is free to revert a boneheaded NAC. It's not even clear that the wording above is intended to prohibit that, but it is definitely sometimes interpreted that way. The reason to revert a boneheaded NAC is because it was boneheaded, not because it was NA.
Because of the special technicalities involved, this should probably say something like:
All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review ( WP:MR). Additionally, anyone may revert an NAC that has not already resulted in a move, given good reasons to do so. The mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure. If a move has already resulted, the MR process must be used.
The bit that immediately follows that already explains the technical considerations.
This would obviate the need to open tedious MRs for obvious cases of bad closes (e.g. clearly ignoring of the actual consensus, or closing with a statement that makes it unmistakable that the closer is WP:SUPERVOTING to change what the outcome would have been had a neutral party closed it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am an interested party and would like to request a relisting of the RM discussion at Talk:Chishmy (urban-type settlement), Chishminsky District, Republic of Bashkortostan. The original RM was closed, then reopened but was not relisted for further input at that time. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Can someone give an easy example on the page of what coding to use for an RM? The examples are a bit complicated. And on the RM page itself, there is an easy example for uncontroversial coding right on the coding of the page, but not for a "controversial" RM, maybe add it there too? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Single and multi-page cases
|
---|
{{subst:Rm|OldPageName|NewPageName|reason=Your rationale here.}} {{subst:Rm |current1=OldPageName1 |new1=NewPageName1 |current2=OldPageName2 |new2=NewPageName2 |reason=Your rationale here.}} }} Parameter {{{1}}} a.k.a {{para|current1}} is optional as long as the Rm template is used on the talk page of that article. In each case the Rm template will both create a heading for you and add your sig (unless you use optional parameters that tell it not to). The easiest way to use these is to edit the entire talk page, put the template at the bottom, do "Show preview", copy-paste the auto-generated, dated RM heading name into the "Edit summary" form field, and then save the page. |
It doesn't have a template identifying what kind of page it is. Thinker78 ( talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently there's a button somewhere that resets WP:RM/TR to an empty state, and in the process reverts the improvement that I did. See where I put it back, and discussion at User_talk:Philg88#Section_header_at_WP:RM.2FTR with the guy who pushed the button but doesn't know how it works. Can someone review this, and find the code and make it better please? Dicklyon ( talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a fan of the section header, Dicklyon. If someone wanted to move an RM from uncontested to contested, they could just use the general "Edit source" button. This new section header isn't needed. Sky Warrior 01:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm back from a few months away and I'm wondering what the general opinion was about relisting at RM. My impression (no stats to back it up) is that relisting is becoming increasingly common, especially relisting a specific discussion for a second or even third time. I have always thought that every relist gets diminishing returns and a rough rule of thumb should be to only relist a second time with a very good reason and almost never relist a third time. While it's good to have the backlog area clear, there is generally no harm in having a handful of 'hard' discussions in there – it draws attention not only from potential closers but also people willing to chime in with their opinion and possibly help get the discussion towards a consensus.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. What are yours? Jenks24 ( talk) 02:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Someone moved Mini to Mini (1959-2000), a bold move which overrides a similar request from five years ago. I tried to revert it so that the discussion can take place yet again, but cannot revert it for some reason. I would be thankful for some assistance. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone help me how I change the name of a specific article? Bryggeriet Vestfyens Arena must be renamed Odense Isstadion. JonasJepsen ( talk) 19:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I performed an edit to reflect what the no consensus policy actually says, but now the information after that edit doesn't correlate very well with the change, because it departs from the previous statement, which was wrong because WP:NOCON didn't say what the statement said -at least it doesn't say that currently. I think then the info after my edit should be reworded or deleted, unless someone knows of a no consensus policy that says that if there is no consensus on a move, an article title that has been stable for a long time is kept, and if you know, please link to said policy and edit accordingly. I have to mention that I'm aware of WP:TITLECHANGES, that says " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title", but doesn't specifically mentions what happens when there is no consensus and the title has been stable. Thinker78 ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's say a user unilaterally moves some article to a new title, without going through RM, even though it is a controversial move (maybe it's a borderline primary topic situation, for example). Does reverting that unilateral controversial move count as a controversial move requiring a week+ long discussion to see whether consensus can be established to support the revert? What about no consensus ever being established for the initial unilateral move?
It seems to me that it should be acceptable to include reverts of contested recent unilateral moves in the "uncontested technical moves" section. That is, even though the revert is also known to be controversial, if it's to revert another controversial move that should have gone through RM in the first place, that should be okay.
Or, if the immediate revert is not done, and neither consensus to keep the move nor to revert the move is established in a subsequent RM proposal to revert the move, then the initial move should be reverted (for not having consensus support).
For example:
Questions:
Consider: In any discussion only a tiny fraction of the community is participating. The whole point of defaulting to the status quo when no consensus is found in a given discussion is to err on the side of assuming community consensus supported the status quo. In this case, even though consensus for Foo the thingy being the primary topic by those involved in the discussion could not be found, aren't we supposed to err on the side of the previous established consensus (prior to the unilateral move)? That Foo the thingy was the primary topic per community consensus? By the same token, should that move have been executed in Step 4 as requested? Why or why not?
Actual example from today of a contested technical request to revert a unilateral controversial move [2]. Original unilateral move was reverted nonetheless [3]. (thankfully)
Here's another recent actual example (discussed above) of a revert of a unilateral move: Talk:Mini#Name_of_this_article:_Mini_.281959.E2.80.932000.29_instead_of_Mini
-- В²C ☎ 05:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I updated the Closing Instructions to reflect what we all seem to agree upon above [4]. Any objections? Please edit/adjust as you see fit. -- В²C ☎ 17:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, putting it in the lead is correct. My mistake. I did see it in your above comment, and was just pointing out that we already do have it discussed in RMCI, and I think that document is fine for now. Sorry if it didn't seem that way. Hopefully putting it on the main RM page as information about what current practice is will make this more clear. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi - this is where the discussion and agreement can be found for the change [8] you reverted [9] ("edits to guideline and policy related pages should be discussed and agreed") and I un-reverted [10] ("This edit has been discussed and only restates more visibly what the agreed practice already is"). Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 21:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
My personal opinion: if someone makes a good faith request to revert a unilateral move from the last say three months (time period a bit arbitrary I admit), then it should be actioned, regardless of what you the admin reviewing it think of it. Then you can notify the editor who has made the initial bold move and they can start a RM from a 'clean' position, i.e. the closing admin does not have to try and work out what is the status quo title in the event of a no consensus close. The only exceptions I can think to this general rule would be BLP issues, articles that have suddenly become very high traffic due to a news event, and titles that are blatantly incorrect (i.e. fails WP:V). It has been a source of frustration for me over the years that some of the people who monitor RM/TR – and generally do a great job at a largely thankless task – approach this issue in a somewhat ad hoc manner, where they will revert moves they personally disagree with but refuse to revert moves they agree with and instead start a RM. If we could have crystal clear process on this I think it would makes things easier for people who use RM/TR from both requester and actioner perspectives. The way I envision it, we will occasionally see reverts to titles that are obviously not going to hold up at RM because they e.g. go clearly against a naming convention. But occasionally having one week at a slightly subpar title is a small price to pay for everyone involved in the process to feel like they are getting natural justice. Jenks24 ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058: When User:Jenks24 relist request moves with adding Relisted, RMCD bot did not mark these discussion as relist on WP:RMCD. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The bot looks for an exact match to --'''''Relisting.'''''
to allow for that word to be used in a move rationale without mistaking it for a relisting. The template is a handy way to conform to the specified syntax. I could make the search string less unique, at the risk of finding false-positives. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking the rest of the weekend off. I might make further tweaks Monday to allow for simple italic relistings rather than require boldfaced italic. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
<small>--'''''{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|+}}}|{{{1|-}}}|Relisted.|Relisting.}}''''' ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~</small><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>
Should it be incumbent on the closer of a requested move discussion to fix any dablinks that may arise from their close? E.g. when the consensus is to move Example to Example (example) and Example (disambiguation) to the recently vacated Example, creating a lot of dablinks to fix. My thinking has always been (as both a closer and nominator) that it is the responsibility of those supporting the RM, especially whoever proposed it, to fix the dab links rather than the person who happens to read the discussion and assess the consensus. If the closer wants to help out, great – but it should not be part of what is required. Closing a requested move discussion is already a more time and labour expensive exercise than closing any other consensus-finding process on Wikipedia that I can think of, and insisting that the closer fix in some cases hundreds of dablinks on top of what they've already done seems a severe disincentive to closing discussions.
For the discussion that prompted me to start this topic see Talk:Bark (botany)#Requested move 27 November 2017. Pinging Narky Blert who I disagreed with there and also R'n'B who recently reverted an edit I made to change a redirect to point to a dab as a result of an RM close (see Family Channel) – I take it they will have a different opinion to me. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
// Cleanup links to disambiguation pages (run it at the DAB page in question)
importScript('User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js]]
What do we do when a move request is closed after discussion, and then an identical proposal is made within a short period of time? Should they be speedily closed? If not, should participants in the previous recent discussion be notified (as an exception to canvassing)? Should the previous discussion be taken into account by the closer? I've run into this situation twice recently, at Talk:Thomas M. Davis and currently and more importantly at Talk:Richard B. Spencer. - Station1 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
RE https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=815317718
Tom Wolf (politician) (currently a redirect to Tom Wolf) → Tom Wolf ( move · discuss) – Tom Wolf, which is simpler and easier to link to, already redirects to the article's current title, Tom Wolf (politician). Page would have to moved over a redirect. Scanlan ( talk) 03:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
performed by TonyBallioni ( talk · contribs)
04:00, 14 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+39) . . N Tom Wolf (politician) (TonyBallioni moved page Tom Wolf (politician) to Tom Wolf: Requested by Scanlan at WP:RM/TR: Tom Wolf, which is simpler and easier to link to, already redirects to the article's current title, Tom Wolf (polit...)
I would think that if an RM was previously proposed and was unsuccessful, that it should be ineligible for listing as an Uncontroversial technical request. While in this case, I would not contest the move again (previously, he was a mere candidate), I think in principle quiet ( Talk:Tom Wolf is very quiet) uncontroversial technical requests should not be entertained when the previous RM was unsuccessful. It is damaging to community respect for RM procedures. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
So the move discussion that I initiated at Talk:Arden railway station, Melbourne was closed as no consensus. I want to make it perfectly clear from the outset that I have no issue with Bradv or his close, so by my understanding move review is not an appropriate forum. However, I think it's important in this situation where the name of the entity in question has actually changed (both officially and in RS) that we at least get a consensus on the issue for the good of Wikipedia, even if that consensus is not to move.
What is the next step to take here? FWIW, if I renominated for a move I'd make the nomination for Arden railway station, Melbourne to North Melbourne railway station (Arden), since in the weeks since the original nom the press and official sources have adopted this disambiguator. Or is the best step a more widely publicised RFC with multiple options? Triptothecottage ( talk) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Random question - Is there any reason as to why the underline in "Discuss" is under the "scu"? .... It looks odd ?, Thanks, – Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The link for "Uncontroversial technical requests" doesn't seem to work. I want to move the article 'Moto Gymkhana' to 'Motogymkhana' as that is the official name of the sport. X10 ( talk) 10:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: I have made a proposal to add a reference to Wikipedia:Requested moves to the page move dialogue, at MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext#Proposal to add reference to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please feel free to weigh in there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking those should be permissible here, in WP:RM/TR, rather than being sent to CfD (there is no WP:CFDS criterion for reversing undiscussed category renames, so they'll always end up being lengthy discussions when they should simply be reversible as out-of-process. Given the formality of WP:CFD, where even "speedy" renames take a week, there basically is no condition under which going around renaming categories on a whim is okay, even if you're capable of cleaning up after it. If something is, say, a foul-mouthed attack category, that's just a speedy deletion candidate, not a speedy renaming one. It basically just should not be happening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I want to request to move this page into this, however there are some problems. Just hard to get in though. How to do it and how to move? Sincerely ( User talk:ZaDoraemonzu7) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC+8)
We currently have a group of 5 RM discussions that all have the same set of comments because they're all on the same issue. Is there a process that allows merging them into a multi-RM discussion, or do I need to repeat myself on every one?
And judging by the names, I'd guess a bunch more where these came from. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I pinged the 5 involved and told them I'm starting a new multi-RM, which I have now done; hopefully none of them object and we can just delete the old 5. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think per WP:LISTNAME, articles in Category:National records in Olympic weightlifting should be moved. Example: "Albanian records in Olympic weightlifting" → "List of Albanian records in Olympic weightlifting". Anybody up for it? -- Pelmeen10 ( talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See this. I really shouldn't have opened the RM in the first place, since if I did a thorough check I would have noticed that the only reason I couldn't perform the move myself was that the page was moved by another editor a few months back. When I did I pinged the editor who had moved the page, and they supported my proposed title, but the following day a non-admin relisted it because it was "just starting to be seen by others" (even though the only outside comment had been specifically invited and was a support); it seems extremely unlikely that anyone will oppose even now that it has been relisted, but now I'm worried that another non-admin will come along and close it as "no consensus to move to proposed title" -- it seems outlandish, but so did a non-admin relisting an unopposed technical request to allow for more discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The RM process is botched. Only a few editors bother to go onto article talk pages; that means that only a few users contribute to RM discussions. Let XFD handle move discussions; that part of Wikipedia actually has !votes involving more than 3 users. KMF ( talk) 01:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Over time, I've gradually increased the number of notifications sent out by my
RMCD bot... to relevant WikiProject talk pages, when they aren't subscribed to article alerts... to talk pages of the targets of the requested move, when those exist and aren't redirects... to the top of the articles themselves. Perhaps sending talk page messages to the major contributors of the article
is the last frontier for RMCD bot-generated notices... I'm not sure how much that would help, but I'll keep that idea on my back burner... unless there is a groundswell of demand for that. Personally, I contribute my share of participation in this area, but if I took the time to comment on every RM discussion, I wouldn't have much time left to get anything else done. And a lot of my "anything elses" are areas where there is even less participation than there is at RM. And regarding XFD, I very rarely take time to participate there.
wbm1058 (
talk)
18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This was triggered by
this move review of
the RM of {{
refimprove}}
. There is nothing wrong with the RM process for articles. However, I am open to the idea that there should be a different process for templates, since that's an entirely different set of standards. The assertion that
WP:RM was also for templates seems to originate in
this edit from 2006, and I couldn't find the discussion that led to that, if there was one. It seems to have been accepted without comment at the time, possibly because it was a very natural outgrowth of the technical aspect of the pre-RM state of affairs, which was "if you can't move it yourself, find an admin and ask them to move it". However, these days the vast majority of requested moves are decided on
WP:Article titles-related factors. I wonder if
WP:Templates for discussion wouldn't be a better place for template re-titling discussions. Cheers, --
Aervanath (
talk)
08:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if there is some technical limitation and this has been discussed in the past. Is there a reason the bot has formatted the number of relisted discussions like this — (Discuss)ions —with parentheses, capitalization, and part of the word underlined? It looks like this has been in place since the addition to the page last May, but I presume changing it requires changes to the bot. Dekimasu よ! 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly not happening. ( closed by page mover) Sky Warrior 17:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Proposed moves – The title is consistent with Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Determining the community's top choice for the title at Sarah Jane Brown has been challenging for a number of reasons, for years. I'm hoping to propose a multi-choice approach to get this resolved, once and for all. My approach is in draft form right now, and would appreciate some input and suggestions. See Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/table. Thanks -- В²C ☎ 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The reception for having participants edit a table was less than lukewarm. That's abandoned. Instead, I'm proposing we list the choices and have people express their preferences and reasons accordingly. Details here: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Next step? Better? Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
My god... we started arguing about the title of that article over 10 years ago... and we are STILL arguing about it? That has to be a record of some sort. Blueboar ( talk) 01:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record and for future reference, what Francis Schonken did there is probably the best way to go. He simply created a separate subsection for each candidate title, so everyone could comment on each candidate separately. It seems to be working and definitely the approach I'll take in future similar situations, once a reasonable list of candidate titles titles has been established. I think the closer will have a reasonable chance at finding consensus without pulling out too much hair. -- В²C ☎ 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request that three uninvolved admins with plenty of RM experience form a panel to properly close the 12-choice multi-section cluster I helped create at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested_move_8_February_2018. It should be ready to go in a day or so. First three to sign up here "win"? -- В²C ☎ 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If we distinguish finding WP:CONSENSUS and "consensus" as follows:
I think it's safe to say that in most RMs it doesn't matter. For example, to randomly pick the first proposal in the Elapsed section right now, we have Talk:Billy_Harrison#Requested_move_22_February_2018, a strong policy-based proposal from Roman Spinner, and four !votes concurring. A typical no-brainer. The "consensus" is clearly in support of the proposal (in fact it's unanimous), and of course all policy-based points favor the proposal too, so it's reasonable to determine that the consensus of the community also favors the move.
Because in most RMs determining "consensus" of the participants and CONSENSUS of the community turns out to be the same, it's easy to conflate the two, and get in the habit of determining "consensus" instead of CONSENSUS. Let's face it, determining "consensus" is much easier and it feels natural. I mean, if, say 7 out of 10 oppose a proposal, how can you find the proposal being favored by the community? Well, you can, and should, if the only three !votes based in policy are the ones supporting it.
Distinguishing finding CONSENSUS and "consensus" is of course especially important in RMs where "consensus" and CONSENSUS are in conflict, which can happen for a variety of reasons, but usually involves WP:JDLI arguments with WP:NPOV totally ignored. Some excellent examples of this phenomenon are six of the seven RMs at Yoghurt that preceded the eighth one in which the proposal to move to Yogurt finally succeeded. In each of those earlier six in which the closer found "no consensus" the opposition was riddled with JDLI arguments which should have been discounted if not dismissed entirely in determining community CONSENSUS. In fact, the closer back in RM #2 (2006) actually did that, but was reverted 2 weeks later by another RM relying on "consensus" of the participants based on counting !votes rather than CONSENSUS of the community based on weighing strength of arguments. That particular dispute was unnecessarily stretched out for eight years thanks to closer after closer being reluctant to determine CONSENSUS overriding the "consensus" of those participating.
A more recent and perhaps more egregious example is the string of dubious closures at Sarah Jane Brown, including the one this week, in which again the closers deferred to the blatant NPOV-violating opposition to the "wife of ... " disambiguation that incorrectly claims "Sarah Jane Brown" to be WP:NATURALDIS (it's not because of the dearth of usage of SJB in reliable sources) and finds the "wife of Gordon Brown" parenthetic disambiguation to be inappropriate, offensive, etc., an obviously non-neutral stance, but unable to cite anything from reliable sources supporting this view. But these sources are riddled with examples identifying her in exactly those words, or very similar ones. And so the dispute there too remains unresolved, postponed again by a terrible decision based on "consensus" rather than WP:CONSENSUS.
But this isn't about SJB. My goal here is simply to bring this issue to the attention of closers, and to remind us all of what it says at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus:
In my opinion, that's not quite strong enough, because it suggests both should be given equal consideration. And that may be true in theory, but in practice, I think closers are far too reluctant to override consensus of the participants by consensus of the community "as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", whenever there is a conflict. And that's why we have ongoing unresolved disputes like Sarah Jane Brown.
Thanks, -- В²C ☎ 17:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I've been on the other side. After consensus was found at Sega Genesis, there was still some unrest about the title, and so I initiated and wrote most of this FAQ to help everyone understand how we go that title and why: Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. Check it out. This helps establish that the title is on firm ground with the community and, I believe, is much better than imposing an artificial moratorium on further proposals. A similar effort was made at Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. In other words, the proper way to build consensus and stable titles is with policy based argument and persuasion. It works. Counting raw !votes only works when the result happens to coincide with WP:CONSENSUS, which, for better or for worse, is most of the time. But in these special cases, a different approach is required.
By the way, here is a list of RMs with currently stable titles that went through a series of failed RMs before finally succeeding in a change to a stable and undisputed title:
Most of these could have been settled much earlier, sometimes years earlier, had the earlier closers paid more attention to CONSENSUS and policy than to consensus of the participants as indicated by counting raw !votes. -- В²C ☎ 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The other day I was listening to a talk about how Google self-driving cars work and someone asked about scenarios not anticipated in the software. The answer was very interesting, and, surprisingly, I think it applies to WP title decision-making. The idea is that they don't anticipate every possible scenario, but instead distill general principles of driving that can be applied effectively in any scenario, including scenarios not yet anticipated. The resistance to making title decision-making algorithmic based on the notion that it can't be algorithmic, though driving in infinitely unpredictable traffic can be, is absurd. We too can distill general principles - call them policies - and apply them objectively to all titles. If we have situations where the polices don't give us a clear-cut answer, then we've identified a problem in our policies. A self-driving car can't suddenly stop in traffic because its algorithms produce a muddled decision. If during testing they encounter such a situation, they address it by fixing the underlying principles. We should be doing the same. -- В²C ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
titles don't matter much." Great. So if the title of that biography about that woman with a very common name (common, as in a name shared with lots of other women, inherently causing traffic accidents amongst those women) doesn't matter very much, why do we need to have so many discussions to decide that title, and need to call in a team of elders to close the discussion? "
My interest is in a process that results in titles without conflicts (just like self-driving cars rely on a process that results in reaching destinations without collisions)." We already have such a process. It's called disambiguation. Hatnotes and disambiguation pages, when functioning properly allow readers to avoid collisions. Sarah Brown is such a roundabout. Readers drive around that roundabout until they see the link pointing to their desired article, at which point they leave the roundabout and follow that link. Does it really matter that much what the sign on the roundabout says, as long as the short description accompanying the link "
(born 1963), charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown" is sufficiently clear? Is our system perfect? No, it's not, or Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review would always be empty. We could use a few more volunteers to help keep that category cleared, as we haven't yet developed a bot (the wiki version of the self-driving car) to work that category. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.This might be the most arrogant thing I have ever read in regards to a move discussion. The community does not have to do anything in regards to a requested move: the presumption is that it will stay at a stable title: the obligation is on those wanting a move to achieve consensus. There wasn't even consensus a move was needed (and please don't go on the CONSENSUS vs "consensus" distinction: people considered your arguments and made counter arguments. This was also a community-wide RM advertised at CENT and BLPN which means that it had wide input from beyond the normal RM crowd who writes the guidelines, which almost certainly makes it more reflective of actual community consensus on the interpretation of the naming policy in this case than the small crowd who are RM regulars.) The community has consistently rejected a move for half a decade. In the other cases you could argue whether or not it was the specific title that caused people to reject it but this RM had probably every title available, and they still preferred the status quo: per the close, I think that there was a slight consensus to keep the stable title, not necessarily a consensus that it was the best, but a consensus that it would work and that repeated RMs were disruptive. Please drop the stick here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.What you mean is, you can't get your self-driving car to get out of the roundabout. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown. That translates to the parenthetical Sarah Brown (wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown) which we would shorten to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) if her husband did not require disambiguation. But, of course, this runs into the issues of "political correctness" and whether or not the Daily Mail is a RS. LOL. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one.No, we just have to figure out how to get a small number of people to stop obsessing over moving the article away from a title that is 100% verifiably accurate, unambiguous and where there is no evidence it is considered a problem at all other than by them. B2C, your arrogance is incredible. You're basically saying that the whole of the rest of Wikipedia has to find a solution to a problem that most of them don't consider to be actually a problem, and do so to your personal satisfaction, otherwise you will keep bringing it up again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Guy ( Help!) 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"...still be just one source; no where near meeting the “commonly called” NATURALDIS hurdle.
"
This is flat-out wrong. An incorrect interpretation of
Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
She is commonly called
Sarah Jane Brown, albeit not as commonly as Sarah Brown. There is no "failure to pass a hurdle here". Title characteristics (e.g. "naturalness") should be seen as goals, not as rules
. Stop insisting that they be seen as rules. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.
Yes, she is less commonly called by her full name, much less commonly than she is called by just her first and last name. Because of this relatively weak case for natural disambiguation, a serious attempt was made to find a parenthetical alternative. Examination of sources leads to looking at Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), or "spouse", for consideration. This has been strongly rejected, for reasons I think you should understand. Similarly, Sarah Brown (born 1963) has also been rejected, though not as strongly. Taking a look at the Sarah Brown (disambiguation) page, the defacto parenthetical that would be acceptable would be Sarah Brown (charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown), but this is weak on the conciseness criterion. Unfortunately, unlike some of the past spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, she has no title like Countess, Duchess, Viscountess, Marchioness, or Baroness which would disambiguate. The British don't use " First Lady"; that role may be filled by Prince Philip. Someone made a pointy edit that bluntly shows why the community is having trouble with solely disambiguating based on some variant of "charity director" or "campaigner". Note that no other Prime Minister's spouse's name has parenthetical disambiguation. Having failed to find an acceptable parenthetical that doesn't seriously impair other criteria, the community has, perhaps reluctantly, fallen back on the natural disambiguation as the best of the less-than-ideal options. Should another woman named Sarah Jane Brown become sufficiently notable to challenge this one for primary topic status, well, we'll wait to deal with that problem until it actually arises. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who may be interested, this example from 2009 ( Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move) demonstrates what a CONSENSUS overrides "consensus" decision looks like. This one sentence from the close tells it all:
I think it's likely that this wise close by Fuhghettaboutit averted multiple repeated attempts to move and its place in the list above. There was one more attempt to move back, in 2016 ( Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move_11_January_2016), but it was shutdown by "consensus" as well as CONSENSUS, which is exactly what I see happening every time CONSENSUS is recognized to trump "consensus" like this. -- В²C ☎ 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps against my better judgement as at this point my confidence in settling this is shattered...
...the closers deferred to the blatant NPOV-violating opposition that incorreclty (sic) claims "(name redacted)" to be WP:NATURALDIS
... Again, I fail to understand how using a person's full first, middle and last name as indisputably documented and confirmed by primary sources expresses a "point-of-view" about that person. Titling a biography using a person's own name is about as neutral as you can get, with perhaps very few exceptions. In contrast, when a person is known for A, B, C and D we are expressing a point-of-view about that person when we title it with parentheticals like (A), (B), (C), (D), (A and B), (A and C), (A, B and C) or (A, B, C and D).
How do we balance this conflicting advice and have an article title that is both concise and NPOV? I can't think of a better way in a BLP than to just use their full name.
I think I hear Blueboar (two subsections above). Try to keep this section theoretical, as specific examples aren't helping with understanding this. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the discussion here has run its course, as it's getting repetitive and we can't keep a high-level discussion about (A) from degenerating into something more specific.
FYI. Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS. – wbm1058 ( talk) 13:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)