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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Just wondering why no new move requests have been posted since 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC). My request ( Talk:Billiard ball computer) of 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC) as yet to be posted here. Does this have to do with the problematic contested close issue discussed in the above sections? — Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Was this concluded properly? Were my arguments flimsly? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would support a closure review process, but believe the RM process in general needs a bit more guardrails. Although this is not a proposal, here are a few bullets to describe what I think would make for a much better process.
Just some perspective from someone whose worked on WP:Title issues and closed some RMs. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review as a draft that could be expanded to be a guideline and process for reviewing contested RM closures. If you are interested, please use the associated talk page to discuss the need for this and how the potential process should be structured. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A bit of warring ended up as a requested move from The Troll Hunter → Troll Hunter. In the following discussion it was noted that the links the requesting editor used as support for the move mostly contained the spelling Trollhunter, and this is what the final move ended up as. I find that a bit problematic, because
And as one of two opposing the move, I also have the following issues with the closing statement. The closing admin used the policy WP:COMMONNAME, and decided the spelling after how one newspaper spelled it.
To sum it up. For these reasons I feel that the move to “Trollhunter” did not have consensus, unlike “Troll Hunter” which had some support. And the move has lead to the article title now has become an exception to WP:THE, rather than following it. - Laniala ( talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree there was no LOCALCONSENSUS for that particular move, but I think the closer made a reasonable call based on community consensus, given that there probably is not one correct/ideal answer for this case. The fact is that the distributors of the film are themselves inconsistent about usage, and so are sources. It's very difficult to determine which is most commonly used in sources. I think it was a reasonable call. But then, I think it would have been reasonable to move it to Troll Hunter as well.
Does it really matter? My advice: let it go. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:LAME, anyone?-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We just recognized that the title of the article “[ University of Applied Science]” is wrong. The current title is the one of the [ [25]] (Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften)). This might cause confusion. The title should be: Zurich Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts. That is the correct designation for the ZFH (Zürcher Fachhochschule in German). According to our translator the ZFH is = Zurich Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts because this is the official term and it is in our terminology database. Zhaw CC ( talk) 11:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There is a bit of confusion about the article " Late Bloomers". It is a Swiss film from 2006 but there is another title from 2011 by Julie Gavras. This necessitates that there should be a disambiguation page and the article about the Swiss film should be renamed to Late Bloomers (2006) so that a new article can be created under the title Late Bloomers (2011). I already inserted a reference in the article about Julie Gavras which would point to this would-be article. -- Hhgygy ( talk) 08:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem (IMHO) is that the original title of the first, i.e. currently existing film is not Late Bloomers, it is a translation of a German title. If someone looks for the film called Late Bloomers it is much more likely the film by Julie Gavras they might be looking for, as it is the original English title. At least, I never heard of that Swiss film but I tried to find some more information about the 2011 film. -- Hhgygy ( talk) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how my edit changes meaning of the page -- PBS ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's gonna be a very sad day, when editors start pushing for other non-english article titles, like Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Arabic; etc etc. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Only" is misleading because there are other reasons for using this process some of them are mentioned as bullet points under "Requesting technical moves" eg "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page". The bold of the second sentence is unnecessary and distracts attention from the first sentence which in this context and placing is the more important point. -- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Would someone take a look at Talk:Anne_Hathaway_(actress)#Requested move (2012), please? It is highly irregular. The status quo should be restored. When RMs have settled a suite of titles, it should stay settled until there are further RMs. Noetica Tea? 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
In the past I have believed an admin has made an error in judgement when closing an RM; in those situations should I just revert because I think the closer is "clearly wrong"? Jenks24 ( talk) 12:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Where were these discussions? The only place I see discussion about the close is further up this page. Looking at it, we see Vegaswikian saying it is his intention to close as moved. Two more admins, TerriersFan and Aervanath, agree with his assessment of the consensus, followed by some comments from editors with entrenched positions along the lines that we've seen a million times before. So he closes it as moved. Then you say that VW is biased because he has voted in one diacritcs-related RM in the past, and say his close was incorrect. Resolute and Agathoclea agree with you that the close was incorrect, though they make no comment on VW supposed bias, and Resolute takes a clear position on the subject of diacritcs. Then UtherSRG, who had voted in many diacritcs RMs in the preceding week (all in favour of diacritics), reverts VW's move. Subsequently PBS chimes in to say VW's close was correct.
So we have eight admins who commented on the closure. Four agreed the consensus was "moved", four disagreed with that assessment. Clearly if 50% of admins sampled agree with the close, it was not a blatantly bad decision, as you assert. Clearly it was a close call, a judgement call. And if you believe VW was too biased to make the closure, how can you not believe that Uther was too biased to revert it?
A few side notes: VW was willing to discuss his close (and did so), but it was reverted less than 24 hours after he made it. It was then Uther who did not want to discuss things further. VW has also never stated that he "he does not think articles should have diacritics" – that is false and you should strike it. Lastly, your unblocking analogy is poor in that many believe the "second-mover advantage" with unblocking is a serious problem, and there have been recent ArbCom cases to try and fix the problem. That is not something we should be aiming to emulate. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I've seen a unfortunate amount of more serious conflict resolution in real-life contexts in the last 20-30 years, in many cases to reduce disruption at some point the minority holding out for a practice that is out of synch with the reality of others in any community need to be told "look at the universe." In this specific little case here on en.wp the active but tiny minority of Users on en.wp who insist on removing/preventing European-language accents from pockets of European living person biographies on the basis of mentions in low-MOS English sources, such as [some] sports websites, need to look at the bigger universe - to look at how en.wp treats chemists and composers, other sports, to look how en.wp is and then ask themselves "if I am advocating an interpretation of existing MOS evidenced in only 1% or 0.5% of relevant articles, then is it really everyone else who is the problem...?" In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this should have been a simple "Oppose as premature" !vote, not a closure. Would someone please? I won't, since I'm active in the related conversation at Talk:Champagne. Thanks. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 03:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be better if related bots performed listing at WP:RM not by subst:Requested move, but by the {{movenotice}} itself with the talk thread link, placed in the article. Basically the current shortcoming is that when you forget to tag the talk thread with subst:Requested move, the article will not appear at WP:RM even if there is a movenotice (an instruction creep, which may lead to limited feedback or no feedback at all). Thoughts? (moved from WP:VPT per suggestion). Brandmeister talk 09:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In late February, I proposed moving Wikipedia:GLAM/SI and the many related pages/categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject Smithsonian, and treating it like a normal (if generally inactive) WikiProject. Since then, I've had one assent and no objections. It doesn't appear to be listed on WP:RM, but it has been in Category:Requested moves. Anyone have any opinions, or willing to go ahead and do this? Thank you. Disavian ( talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Many RMs get reasonable attention from a sufficient number of editors to make a decision after the first 7 days. Some get no attention, even after they've been in backlog for days. Others get too much attention because they are truly controversial moves. Move requests that get no or limited attention, or move requests that get no attention from experts in the topic are more difficult to deal with. I suggest we add an additional step to the RM initiation process. That step would ask that nominators notify the talk page of relevant projects (as listed on the talk page of the article) that a move request is underway. No additional rationale is needed, merely a notification. This should draw attention from experts on the topic to the move request and help ensure sufficient informed inputs are made by experts on the topic. I don't know if there is an existing notification template we can use, or one needs to be created. It needs to be simple, but I think such notification will improve the RM process as well as the overall result of RM discussions. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd proposed a move of Kan-O-Tex Service Station → Kan-O-Tex here. A consensus was reached during this discussion to split the article's subject matter ( Kan-O-Tex Service Station and Kanotex Refining Company) as two separate pages, which has now been done. A move proposal based on the original (before the split) article makes no sense if the page is now two topics; Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest says I should be able to close a nomination I'd made as withdrawn if it only received "no comment" or was "unanimously opposed" but is there any basis to withdraw a proposed move because the page that exists now simply isn't what existed when this was proposed? 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is edited frequently because of "Technical (formerly non-controversial) requests". Shall this proposed subpage be created? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Now then; anybody here oppose or support this idea? For starters, how must the idea be processed? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about archiving move requests. Feel free to jump in. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following change, with new wording highlighted to the "Requesting technical moves" section:
The purpose is to prevent "technical moves" from trashing existing redirects to a different article and thereby breaking incoming links to that article. I suspect most admins who monitor this page already apply this in practice, but I have seen some cases where it has been violated. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Should WP:RM include advice to check that articles are Project tagged correctly before RM? I just noticed that the RM for Talk:Ululani, a Hawaiian chiefess, has been running for 4 days and didn't have any Project tags on it, the most obvious one needed being WikiProject Hawaii. Shouldn't there be at least a mention/invitation on WP:RM instructions to at least consider whether Project tags are in place before launching an RM? I'm not saying a rule. It can be phrased "you may wish to consider whether the article is missing relevant Project tags before initiating an RM, but you are not obliged to add them" In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
First, I find the suggestion that only project members can add project tags to an article completely contrary to practice. A project tag can be added to an article by any editor, if they think the article falls under to purview of a project. Second, the idea that adding a project tag to an article is inviting WP:CANVASS is short-sighted and in fact absolutely contrary to the purpose of RM. RM is not a competition, but a discussion initiated by someone who believes there is a more appropriate title for a given article. More participation, regardless of motives, is better for the community and better for the encyclopedia. Any methodology that improves knowledgeable participation in RM discussions should be part of the process. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The closing instructions for successful requests should mention that archiving templates for talk pages may need to be adapted to the changed page names.-- Oneiros ( talk) 16:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Since RM has renamed files in the past, is it still out of scope? I noticed that four files were removed from the RM process as being out of scope. People with the filemover bit can rename files now, not just administrators anymore. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In closing a RM discussion, are closing admins allowed to call a WP:Rough consensus? Should they be? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am quite sure that WP:CONSENSUS has little relevance to the close of a discussion after a short defined time period. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus (rough or otherwise) applies to every discussion afaik. (An exception being requests for tools or responsibilities, like RfA, which are more of a hybrid process.) The main variations are only in what the presumed intended outcomes should be in relation to what is being discussed (the action to take or not to take). So, please pardon me if suggesting that there are different rules for determining the consensus of an XfD and an RM, seems kinda ridiculous to me. - jc37 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Ordinarily, any ordinary editor may rename a page. However, if there is current opposition, or past opposition, is there a "rule" that a formal WP:RM discussion must be used? If not, I think there should be. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Biñan City, Laguna → Biñan, Laguna — Requesting the removal of the word "city" from the article title to create uniformity as agreed upon in earlier moves. -- RioHondo ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to move a number of template sandbox subpages that were left behind due to moves performed, and which are unlikely to have incoming internal or external links (due to the fact that they're sandboxes...). To do so, I would like to move without redirect. I can't find a basis to ask for these types of moves anywhere except as a part of XNRs (or the redirect criteria of CSD). I thought possibly to list it here at Tech moves, but the documentation doesn't seem to consider this case. -- Izno ( talk) 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
{{db|routine housekeeping under [[WP:CSD#G6|CSD G6]]: this is an artifact redirect left behind when a user's sandbox draft was moved to the mainspace; there are no incoming links}}
If there is a good reason to recycle them by moving them, then you could tag the resulting redirects with a tailored variation of the above.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
*I would appreciate it if an admin would move X → Y without leaving a redirect because...
But there are two other methods you could use: just ask an admin you know directly (you could ask me in the future [I'll go take care of these now, by the way]). Second, you could lay out the request on your talk page and then use {{
Adminhelp}}. You could even use {{db|reason}} on the sandbox but just lay out your request inside it, though that would be a bit of a square peg, round hole but Wikipedia is
not a bureaucracy of
rigid rules and methods.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk) 04:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Precisely what I've wanted.
Would it make sense to say that such a move (a most likely uncontroversial move-without-redirect) should be documented on the page as a possible move to be done via tech-RM?
On various things: direct to admin, is there a "admins willing to perform reasonable requests" category or something like "admins willing to make technical moves"? On adminhelp, that probably wouldn't have answered the question so that I know for the future. On db-*, I've watched WT:CSD and there seems to be resistance there at least to using IAR (however reasonable it may be) to justify anything the criteria don't cover. On that point however, this could have conceivably been a custom G6, I think, but the nature of a move-without-request is that it shows up in the move log, and not in the deletion log, which would also make me nervous about tagging for a 'deletion'. /shrug. Definitely want a response on the category question though. -- Izno ( talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination is the parent category. Maybe you could start the reasonable requests category. :^)
I don't think it would be too long. Something like, "Requests for move-without-redirect which are uncontroversial can be made here, but will not work with RMassist, so you must use a bullet and a new line describing the move." Basically, exactly what you said. -- Izno ( talk) 11:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Jafeluv said that archiving requests is unnecessary. What about archiving WP:cut and paste move repair holding pen? It archives old requests. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post about this but I noticed there's an article called Performance Errors due to Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight and I don't really know what to do with it. Is there a more Wikipedia-style title we can move this to? Or maybe the content should just be merged somewhere? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
And this one: Performance Errors due to Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight/Ground based evidence for performance errors due to fatigue and work overload. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware, on May 24, 2012 User:George Ho created Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as a separate page that was then transcluded into WP:RM, putting in place a process for archiving technical move requests. As far as I can tell, the only place this was discussed was higher on this page at #Archiving move requests? Only two people other than the proposer participated, me and User:Jafeluv, and both of us implicitly opposed the proposal. Nevertheless, the process was unilaterally implemented.
I think this is an utterly useless extra layer of bureaucracy and a time sink, added on top of a process that is for technically-barred moves that are little different than the hundreds of bold moves made every day by users of all stripes without any archiving, and other technical requests that are implemented through {{
db-move}}
. I see no utility, nor have I ever seen a situation on the heels of the thousands and thousands of past technical requests done, where if this were in place it would have helped anything. I do not have plans at this time to archive any technical requests I perform (and have not since this was implemented). Yet, this is now functioning as a fait accompli. I propose it be deprecated.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Using revisions are convenient not that convenient, but they are mostly useful for vandalism and recovery. Why should an average user use revisions to check on approval or rejection of requests? Why must an article be added into a watchlist to see if a renaming happens technically (and uncontroversially)? If I can't go "rhetorical" (I'm not, am I?), then I don't know what else to say. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Unreal7's nominations seem to keep breaking the autogenerated listings by RMbot. The rationales, username and timestamps are always missing from the listing. As this user nominates alot of things at RM, he seems to be the only person breaking the listing. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
{{Requested move/dated}}
from other RMs rather than using {{subst:Requested move}}
.
Jenks24 (
talk) 05:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I made an to state that {{ movenotice}} should be placed at the top of any page up for moving (vs can be placed). I believe all readers and editors of a page should be informed of an ongoing move discussion, in the same way we inform them of ongoing AfD, CfD, DR, etc discussions. There isn't any reason to allow move discussions to be seen only by those who happen to look at the talk page or who already were watching it. One way to address this would be to ask the bot to add these automatically, including linking to the correct rename title, and to the discussion.[-- KarlB ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Signature restored, after the editor had inadvertently removed it earlier.
Since these edits all seem to directly relate to WP:RM it seems necessary to note this here. At least since Feb 2012 a series of IP addresses in Ho Chi Minh City have been setting up Miszabot archiving on various controverted articles which are the location of multiple RMs. The IP sets the bot to archive the previous contrary/failed RM, coincidentally when the Miszabot clicks in, then a new RM starts. RMs more or less affected appear to include:
I am not sure how many others are affected. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. I will go inform Kauffner now if a bot hasn't. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that on several RMs, where someone sets up archiving, and previous RM requests get archived, and immediately after, a new RM appears. There's someone going around setting up archiving to leave 0 threads visible and a freshness max of only 15 days (I had to fix a very stupid bot archival where the person who set up the bot said use archive 1, when the archives already existed and went to 3... dumping new threads into a closed archive, so I went poking and found a few more, two months ago). --
76.65.131.160 (
talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How and when will such a discussion be closed?-- sicaspi ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone fancy taking a look at Talk:S/2012 P 1#Requested move? 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I think I need some help. Please see User talk:Bananas Monkey#Please stop all page moves. I don't think I've scratched the surface of all of this user's incorrect page moves ( move log). I've spent over an hour cleaning up just a bunch from the front end of his contributions but there are many more. I don't know that they're all wrong, but just about everything I looked at was.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Something wrong with the RM bot? I haven't seen a new listing in almost a day. Is it possible that we've finally reached perfection in article titling across all of WP? Oh, what a glorious day! Dohn joe ( talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to find the request which has stopped the bot working, but haven't had any luck. The user running the bot,
HardBoiledEggs has been inactive for months, although we've tried to contact them on their talk page. There's a notice here
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RM bot inactive, but it doesn't seem to have attracted any help.
User:Wbm1058 has been going over it, but doesn't seem to have had any more success than I have yet. Does anyone here know much about RM bot?
MatthewHaywood (
talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion on 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing as it is the last move to be processed by RM bot, and is suspected to have interfered with the bot due to its being moved during the RM process. The discussion can be reopened in due course of there is no effect on the bot. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a query at BOTREQ since VPtechnical doesn't seem to be coming up with solutions yet. -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned it in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. Guess we'll see what happens. Marcus Qwertyus 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think updating WP:RM manually might just mess things up even more.
What we can see from the history of RM bot is that it stopped editing at 9:30 July 18, 2012. See: Special:Contributions/RM_bot.
Does anyone know what is supposed to trigger the RM bot to run? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I also think manual updates make the situation more difficult to trouble shoot. Note that MatthewHaywood was already confused into thinking the situation had been resolved. I think it takes pressure off fixing the real problem (the bot), and perpetuates the situation.
One thing we desperately need is documentation of how the bot works. If there is any, I can't find it. Though I'm not a PHP programmer, I can read the PHP code, and make sense of much of it. But there are a few key missing pieces. It includes some files - where are they? It generates some output - where does that go? What causes it to run in the first place? It might be as simple as something or someone turned off the scheduling of the bot runs for some reason, and all we need to do is turn it back on. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to start by saying what a great job the manual updater(s) have done with the page - that work is much appreciated. I was wondering, though, about removing discussions from the page once they're closed. I'd be happy to help, if someone pointed me where to go. Maybe the closers could add that to the list of closing tasks until the bot returns? Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
HardBoiledEggs hasn't edited since February, and I believe his TS account expired. The source is available at User:RM bot/requestedmoves.php. Can someone else compile it and set up a bot at least temporarily to update the backlog? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
We're doing okay so far manually updating (anyone have any update on if there's any movement on the getting-the-bot-working front?) I dropped a barnstar earlier today at User:P.T. Aufrette's talk page as he/she seems to be most responsible for listing new RM discussions here from the category. Anyway, for the past week or so I've been periodically removing all the closed discussions and given the quantity, it's clear a number of closers have not added this to their procedures or don't know what to do. It would be great if everyone who does closes would add this step to their normal closing routine until the bot is fixed. Very simply, step-by-step (and most of you will say duh, but...), after you perform a close:
Best regards to all.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the section on Determining Consensus currently is biased towards the status quo too much. It says:
lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens
and
if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name
This is normally fine for a proposal that has never been made before, but if we're getting repeated proposal all ending in "no consensus", I suggest closers do often take more latitude, and this should be encouraged. The current wording discourages this.
In particular, in a case where a give move request has been made repeatedly, and each time ending with "no consensus", I don't think the closer needs to have "clear indication from policy and conventions" on which way to go. After all, if there was clear indication, there would probably be local consensus in support of that.
Further, I've seen many cases where those supporting the status quo can muster just enough opposition to each proposal to move away from that name to make it appear there is no consensus, but never enough to show clear support for the status quo name. With such a history, I don't think it makes sense to favor "the most recent stable name". Or, in other words, with such a history, a title which repeatedly cannot establish consensus support is arguably not a stable name. In such cases I suggest the guidance should encourage the closer to consider whether there is good policy reason to find consensus in favor of the proposed title, even without such indication necessarily being "clear".
The most blatant example of the problem I'm talking about has to be yogurt (yoghurt), in which there were eight RM discussion over nine years, all ending in "no consensus", until the article was finally moved and where it now sits clearly stable. Also there were repeated "no consensus" discussions at Cork (city) until it was finally unilaterally moved by an admin, and has been stable ever since. Jerusalem Day (Yom Yerushalayim) is another example. Also HO scale (H0 scale).
So, what I'm proposing is that specifically when there is a history of "no consensus" results for previous attempts to move a given article, that the current title be given less weight as "stable".
Specifically, I'd like to change this paragraph:
to (splitting the existing paragraph into two and adding the third):
However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. If the most recent stable name is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination.
Also, in cases where there is a history of repeated move proposals and discussions all ending in "no consensus", the current title should not be given the normal "stable" consideration, and the decision should be made accordingly. In other words, if this is the first proposal to move A → B, then clear indication of consensus is needed to move it. But the more previous proposals there have been that ended in "no consensus", then the consensus to keep the current title becomes more and more questionable, and consensus in favor of the move does not need to be as clear. After 2 or 3 "no consensus" results, it's probably a good idea to try the proposed title instead of keeping the existing title. Sometimes you can't determine what consensus really supports until the article sits at each title for a while.
Objections? Comments? Suggestions? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're not distinguishing titles which have a history of repeated discussions all ending in "no consensus" with titles that don't have such a history. I'm talking only about the former, and proposing this only for those situations. Is that not clear from the proposed wording?
I'm baffled as to how you interpret a proposal to make an objective change to the process that has nothing to do with me winning or losing anything as, if I don't get my way, we [need] to change the process so I do get my way. Of course, this proposal to reduce bias that favors the status quo would apply equally in situations where I might favor the status quo. I understand that, and I still think adopting this change would improve WP - because I believe it would help us find true community-wide consensus sooner in more situations than not. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How about if we at least decide to temporarily remove move-protection following a no consensus RM in the hope that a consensus may emerge that way? If that option was discussed in the past, as it must have been, I would appreciate the links to the key discussions. No concesus status que bias is a problem as it leads to bad names lasting for years and years. For the benefit of the project we must do something about it. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 05:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(from WP:RETAIN) When no [page name] has been established [as the default] and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the [page name] used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default
Consensus, where not obvious, is the decision of the closing admin. NAC closes should be reverted where opposed, and reclosed by an admin. Contested admin closes should be sent to WP:Move review.
The only problem I see is where there is a consensus that the original non-stub title is inappropriate, but disagreement on what to move it to. Only in such as case should the admin feel that a “no consensus” close should be avoided, and where the case is closely contested, it should be sent to an RfC. However, I’m not aware of any such examples. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is actually an opportunity rather then an obstacle. Why don't we try to make policy only for the cases where wp:retain does not apply, because it is not a matter of English variety, and use it as a testing ground, postponing any reform of wp:retain to a later date when we are wiser about the outcomes generated by the policy innovation in non- wp:retain RMs. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
and stretch it all the way to situations where the name of an article could literally be a matter of life and death? I find the idea ill-advised, to say the least. Wikipedia is not a game anymore. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 00:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)"In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive."
My answer turned out to be rather long so please read it only when you have the leisure not to rush through. Look SJ, you asked me to give an example of a life and death name choice problem, but any such example I will bring would paint me as a drama queen, and derail the search for consensus by marking me as a problem editor. You do not mean to do that, I know, you did not consider that, but that would be the result. It is quite easy to think of ways in which a non-BLP, non-EngVar name discussion may turn out to be life of death for someone which is not a Wikipedia editor. But whether I can or can not come up with a reasonable example is irrelevant for three reasons.
The first is that my argument does not rest on the fact that it is life or death, only on the fact that it matters. Say that it matters, but only because someone loses their job. Will you be happy then with a policy that may yield arbitrarily senseless results?
The second reason is that when formulating policy we need to be forward looking and not backward looking. The question is not whether it has been a life or death decision in the past, but whether it may come to that in the future. And with the current status of Wikipedia I find a no answer to that one a complete non-starter.
The third reason is that as a matter of common sense, making policy on the basis of the assumption that results don't really make any difference is sensible only if you are absolutely positive that this is indeed the case. Otherwise, it is just not a prescription for good policy. Now, with EngVar cases I happen to share that perception with the authors of
wp:retain. Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine anything other than the quality of service we provide hanging in the balance, and in the grand scheme of things that is not very important. However other than EngVar issues and stuff like San Francisco vs. San Francisco, California, I find it hard to imagine cases where the decision would not have some real world effects that we should take into considerationsee comment.
Bottom line: Time to grow up. Wikipedia is not our private sandbox anymore, our decisions have major implications outside of Wikipedia and it is (sometimessee comment) childish not to take these into account. Any policy that is inconsistent with that will get revised. Ideally, we will do so internally. Subpar, we will continue to do so only when forced by media pressure, BLP obvious case in point.
Last, in the overwhelming tradition of Wikipedia, every discussion must get ad hominen at some point, me. I have lost any interest in the future of the financial crisis page. It may be hard to believe that I will let go after working so hard, but it is exactly because I feel I did my duty there that I am free to move on. Others may follow or not, it is no business of mine any longer. The fact is that I joined Wikipedia not long ago to fix something really small, but every small thing I try to fix reveals a bigger problem. Unfortunately, my summer vacation will soon end and these happy days will have to be cut short. I just hope to beat some sense into you guys before that happens. And even though nobody asked, let me just get something out of the way. I am interested in policy reform but will never, ever, ever run for admin, even if they cancel the abomination of lifetime appointments, and beg me with puppy eyes, and I am under no impression anyone will ever ask. Has the ad hominen quota been filled? Would you mind if we make a commitment to talk about issues from now on?
While this post was too long, I hope it was not too boring and thank you for taking the time to read it. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I should add one comment though. Unless real world effect are clear, such as in "pink slime" for example, we should not make any attempt to incorporate them into our decision making. Our best guide in that mine field of impossible computation is to pick a policy that maximizes the probability of finding the best encyclopedic name, as fast as possible, and provides stability thereafter. We are not to engage in speculation. Our focus should remain, as it was always, on professionalism and producing the best product we can deliver. My above rant should be read as a plea that we take that job seriously and avoid policy that may result in arbitrarily bad choices. That said, the title of an article is less important, in most cases, in my view, than its content, so some perspective is in order, and was lacking in my previous post. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Another alternative I would like to put forward is that we set a rule suggesting that "no two consecutive no-consensus closes" should take place in the context of RMs. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 15:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This entire discussion is somewhat problematic when view in light of WP:RMCI. There are only two alternatives when closing an RM. The article is moved to a new title or it is Not Moved to a new title. Whenever a title is moved, the assumption is that the closing admin judged that consensus and policy supported the move. Whenever a title is not moved, the assumption is that the closing admin judged consensus and policy did not support the move whether there was overwhelming or split opposition. Closing admins are not required to explicitly discuss their closing rationale, but merely required to document the move or not moved decision. The fact that many RMs are closed as Not Moved based on a balance of supports/opposes (especially when policy can be claimed by both sides) does not make them a special case as this thread suggests. And trying to end-run these types of decisions with a default policy is not good business. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Just wondering why no new move requests have been posted since 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC). My request ( Talk:Billiard ball computer) of 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC) as yet to be posted here. Does this have to do with the problematic contested close issue discussed in the above sections? — Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Was this concluded properly? Were my arguments flimsly? -- George Ho ( talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would support a closure review process, but believe the RM process in general needs a bit more guardrails. Although this is not a proposal, here are a few bullets to describe what I think would make for a much better process.
Just some perspective from someone whose worked on WP:Title issues and closed some RMs. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review as a draft that could be expanded to be a guideline and process for reviewing contested RM closures. If you are interested, please use the associated talk page to discuss the need for this and how the potential process should be structured. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A bit of warring ended up as a requested move from The Troll Hunter → Troll Hunter. In the following discussion it was noted that the links the requesting editor used as support for the move mostly contained the spelling Trollhunter, and this is what the final move ended up as. I find that a bit problematic, because
And as one of two opposing the move, I also have the following issues with the closing statement. The closing admin used the policy WP:COMMONNAME, and decided the spelling after how one newspaper spelled it.
To sum it up. For these reasons I feel that the move to “Trollhunter” did not have consensus, unlike “Troll Hunter” which had some support. And the move has lead to the article title now has become an exception to WP:THE, rather than following it. - Laniala ( talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree there was no LOCALCONSENSUS for that particular move, but I think the closer made a reasonable call based on community consensus, given that there probably is not one correct/ideal answer for this case. The fact is that the distributors of the film are themselves inconsistent about usage, and so are sources. It's very difficult to determine which is most commonly used in sources. I think it was a reasonable call. But then, I think it would have been reasonable to move it to Troll Hunter as well.
Does it really matter? My advice: let it go. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:LAME, anyone?-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We just recognized that the title of the article “[ University of Applied Science]” is wrong. The current title is the one of the [ [25]] (Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften)). This might cause confusion. The title should be: Zurich Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts. That is the correct designation for the ZFH (Zürcher Fachhochschule in German). According to our translator the ZFH is = Zurich Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts because this is the official term and it is in our terminology database. Zhaw CC ( talk) 11:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There is a bit of confusion about the article " Late Bloomers". It is a Swiss film from 2006 but there is another title from 2011 by Julie Gavras. This necessitates that there should be a disambiguation page and the article about the Swiss film should be renamed to Late Bloomers (2006) so that a new article can be created under the title Late Bloomers (2011). I already inserted a reference in the article about Julie Gavras which would point to this would-be article. -- Hhgygy ( talk) 08:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem (IMHO) is that the original title of the first, i.e. currently existing film is not Late Bloomers, it is a translation of a German title. If someone looks for the film called Late Bloomers it is much more likely the film by Julie Gavras they might be looking for, as it is the original English title. At least, I never heard of that Swiss film but I tried to find some more information about the 2011 film. -- Hhgygy ( talk) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how my edit changes meaning of the page -- PBS ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's gonna be a very sad day, when editors start pushing for other non-english article titles, like Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Arabic; etc etc. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Only" is misleading because there are other reasons for using this process some of them are mentioned as bullet points under "Requesting technical moves" eg "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page". The bold of the second sentence is unnecessary and distracts attention from the first sentence which in this context and placing is the more important point. -- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Would someone take a look at Talk:Anne_Hathaway_(actress)#Requested move (2012), please? It is highly irregular. The status quo should be restored. When RMs have settled a suite of titles, it should stay settled until there are further RMs. Noetica Tea? 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
In the past I have believed an admin has made an error in judgement when closing an RM; in those situations should I just revert because I think the closer is "clearly wrong"? Jenks24 ( talk) 12:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Where were these discussions? The only place I see discussion about the close is further up this page. Looking at it, we see Vegaswikian saying it is his intention to close as moved. Two more admins, TerriersFan and Aervanath, agree with his assessment of the consensus, followed by some comments from editors with entrenched positions along the lines that we've seen a million times before. So he closes it as moved. Then you say that VW is biased because he has voted in one diacritcs-related RM in the past, and say his close was incorrect. Resolute and Agathoclea agree with you that the close was incorrect, though they make no comment on VW supposed bias, and Resolute takes a clear position on the subject of diacritcs. Then UtherSRG, who had voted in many diacritcs RMs in the preceding week (all in favour of diacritics), reverts VW's move. Subsequently PBS chimes in to say VW's close was correct.
So we have eight admins who commented on the closure. Four agreed the consensus was "moved", four disagreed with that assessment. Clearly if 50% of admins sampled agree with the close, it was not a blatantly bad decision, as you assert. Clearly it was a close call, a judgement call. And if you believe VW was too biased to make the closure, how can you not believe that Uther was too biased to revert it?
A few side notes: VW was willing to discuss his close (and did so), but it was reverted less than 24 hours after he made it. It was then Uther who did not want to discuss things further. VW has also never stated that he "he does not think articles should have diacritics" – that is false and you should strike it. Lastly, your unblocking analogy is poor in that many believe the "second-mover advantage" with unblocking is a serious problem, and there have been recent ArbCom cases to try and fix the problem. That is not something we should be aiming to emulate. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I've seen a unfortunate amount of more serious conflict resolution in real-life contexts in the last 20-30 years, in many cases to reduce disruption at some point the minority holding out for a practice that is out of synch with the reality of others in any community need to be told "look at the universe." In this specific little case here on en.wp the active but tiny minority of Users on en.wp who insist on removing/preventing European-language accents from pockets of European living person biographies on the basis of mentions in low-MOS English sources, such as [some] sports websites, need to look at the bigger universe - to look at how en.wp treats chemists and composers, other sports, to look how en.wp is and then ask themselves "if I am advocating an interpretation of existing MOS evidenced in only 1% or 0.5% of relevant articles, then is it really everyone else who is the problem...?" In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this should have been a simple "Oppose as premature" !vote, not a closure. Would someone please? I won't, since I'm active in the related conversation at Talk:Champagne. Thanks. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 03:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be better if related bots performed listing at WP:RM not by subst:Requested move, but by the {{movenotice}} itself with the talk thread link, placed in the article. Basically the current shortcoming is that when you forget to tag the talk thread with subst:Requested move, the article will not appear at WP:RM even if there is a movenotice (an instruction creep, which may lead to limited feedback or no feedback at all). Thoughts? (moved from WP:VPT per suggestion). Brandmeister talk 09:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In late February, I proposed moving Wikipedia:GLAM/SI and the many related pages/categories to Wikipedia:WikiProject Smithsonian, and treating it like a normal (if generally inactive) WikiProject. Since then, I've had one assent and no objections. It doesn't appear to be listed on WP:RM, but it has been in Category:Requested moves. Anyone have any opinions, or willing to go ahead and do this? Thank you. Disavian ( talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Many RMs get reasonable attention from a sufficient number of editors to make a decision after the first 7 days. Some get no attention, even after they've been in backlog for days. Others get too much attention because they are truly controversial moves. Move requests that get no or limited attention, or move requests that get no attention from experts in the topic are more difficult to deal with. I suggest we add an additional step to the RM initiation process. That step would ask that nominators notify the talk page of relevant projects (as listed on the talk page of the article) that a move request is underway. No additional rationale is needed, merely a notification. This should draw attention from experts on the topic to the move request and help ensure sufficient informed inputs are made by experts on the topic. I don't know if there is an existing notification template we can use, or one needs to be created. It needs to be simple, but I think such notification will improve the RM process as well as the overall result of RM discussions. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd proposed a move of Kan-O-Tex Service Station → Kan-O-Tex here. A consensus was reached during this discussion to split the article's subject matter ( Kan-O-Tex Service Station and Kanotex Refining Company) as two separate pages, which has now been done. A move proposal based on the original (before the split) article makes no sense if the page is now two topics; Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest says I should be able to close a nomination I'd made as withdrawn if it only received "no comment" or was "unanimously opposed" but is there any basis to withdraw a proposed move because the page that exists now simply isn't what existed when this was proposed? 66.102.83.61 ( talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is edited frequently because of "Technical (formerly non-controversial) requests". Shall this proposed subpage be created? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Now then; anybody here oppose or support this idea? For starters, how must the idea be processed? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about archiving move requests. Feel free to jump in. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following change, with new wording highlighted to the "Requesting technical moves" section:
The purpose is to prevent "technical moves" from trashing existing redirects to a different article and thereby breaking incoming links to that article. I suspect most admins who monitor this page already apply this in practice, but I have seen some cases where it has been violated. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Should WP:RM include advice to check that articles are Project tagged correctly before RM? I just noticed that the RM for Talk:Ululani, a Hawaiian chiefess, has been running for 4 days and didn't have any Project tags on it, the most obvious one needed being WikiProject Hawaii. Shouldn't there be at least a mention/invitation on WP:RM instructions to at least consider whether Project tags are in place before launching an RM? I'm not saying a rule. It can be phrased "you may wish to consider whether the article is missing relevant Project tags before initiating an RM, but you are not obliged to add them" In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
First, I find the suggestion that only project members can add project tags to an article completely contrary to practice. A project tag can be added to an article by any editor, if they think the article falls under to purview of a project. Second, the idea that adding a project tag to an article is inviting WP:CANVASS is short-sighted and in fact absolutely contrary to the purpose of RM. RM is not a competition, but a discussion initiated by someone who believes there is a more appropriate title for a given article. More participation, regardless of motives, is better for the community and better for the encyclopedia. Any methodology that improves knowledgeable participation in RM discussions should be part of the process. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The closing instructions for successful requests should mention that archiving templates for talk pages may need to be adapted to the changed page names.-- Oneiros ( talk) 16:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Since RM has renamed files in the past, is it still out of scope? I noticed that four files were removed from the RM process as being out of scope. People with the filemover bit can rename files now, not just administrators anymore. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In closing a RM discussion, are closing admins allowed to call a WP:Rough consensus? Should they be? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am quite sure that WP:CONSENSUS has little relevance to the close of a discussion after a short defined time period. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus (rough or otherwise) applies to every discussion afaik. (An exception being requests for tools or responsibilities, like RfA, which are more of a hybrid process.) The main variations are only in what the presumed intended outcomes should be in relation to what is being discussed (the action to take or not to take). So, please pardon me if suggesting that there are different rules for determining the consensus of an XfD and an RM, seems kinda ridiculous to me. - jc37 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Ordinarily, any ordinary editor may rename a page. However, if there is current opposition, or past opposition, is there a "rule" that a formal WP:RM discussion must be used? If not, I think there should be. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Biñan City, Laguna → Biñan, Laguna — Requesting the removal of the word "city" from the article title to create uniformity as agreed upon in earlier moves. -- RioHondo ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to move a number of template sandbox subpages that were left behind due to moves performed, and which are unlikely to have incoming internal or external links (due to the fact that they're sandboxes...). To do so, I would like to move without redirect. I can't find a basis to ask for these types of moves anywhere except as a part of XNRs (or the redirect criteria of CSD). I thought possibly to list it here at Tech moves, but the documentation doesn't seem to consider this case. -- Izno ( talk) 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
{{db|routine housekeeping under [[WP:CSD#G6|CSD G6]]: this is an artifact redirect left behind when a user's sandbox draft was moved to the mainspace; there are no incoming links}}
If there is a good reason to recycle them by moving them, then you could tag the resulting redirects with a tailored variation of the above.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
*I would appreciate it if an admin would move X → Y without leaving a redirect because...
But there are two other methods you could use: just ask an admin you know directly (you could ask me in the future [I'll go take care of these now, by the way]). Second, you could lay out the request on your talk page and then use {{
Adminhelp}}. You could even use {{db|reason}} on the sandbox but just lay out your request inside it, though that would be a bit of a square peg, round hole but Wikipedia is
not a bureaucracy of
rigid rules and methods.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk) 04:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Precisely what I've wanted.
Would it make sense to say that such a move (a most likely uncontroversial move-without-redirect) should be documented on the page as a possible move to be done via tech-RM?
On various things: direct to admin, is there a "admins willing to perform reasonable requests" category or something like "admins willing to make technical moves"? On adminhelp, that probably wouldn't have answered the question so that I know for the future. On db-*, I've watched WT:CSD and there seems to be resistance there at least to using IAR (however reasonable it may be) to justify anything the criteria don't cover. On that point however, this could have conceivably been a custom G6, I think, but the nature of a move-without-request is that it shows up in the move log, and not in the deletion log, which would also make me nervous about tagging for a 'deletion'. /shrug. Definitely want a response on the category question though. -- Izno ( talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination is the parent category. Maybe you could start the reasonable requests category. :^)
I don't think it would be too long. Something like, "Requests for move-without-redirect which are uncontroversial can be made here, but will not work with RMassist, so you must use a bullet and a new line describing the move." Basically, exactly what you said. -- Izno ( talk) 11:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Jafeluv said that archiving requests is unnecessary. What about archiving WP:cut and paste move repair holding pen? It archives old requests. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post about this but I noticed there's an article called Performance Errors due to Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight and I don't really know what to do with it. Is there a more Wikipedia-style title we can move this to? Or maybe the content should just be merged somewhere? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
And this one: Performance Errors due to Fatigue and Sleep Loss During Spaceflight/Ground based evidence for performance errors due to fatigue and work overload. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware, on May 24, 2012 User:George Ho created Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as a separate page that was then transcluded into WP:RM, putting in place a process for archiving technical move requests. As far as I can tell, the only place this was discussed was higher on this page at #Archiving move requests? Only two people other than the proposer participated, me and User:Jafeluv, and both of us implicitly opposed the proposal. Nevertheless, the process was unilaterally implemented.
I think this is an utterly useless extra layer of bureaucracy and a time sink, added on top of a process that is for technically-barred moves that are little different than the hundreds of bold moves made every day by users of all stripes without any archiving, and other technical requests that are implemented through {{
db-move}}
. I see no utility, nor have I ever seen a situation on the heels of the thousands and thousands of past technical requests done, where if this were in place it would have helped anything. I do not have plans at this time to archive any technical requests I perform (and have not since this was implemented). Yet, this is now functioning as a fait accompli. I propose it be deprecated.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Using revisions are convenient not that convenient, but they are mostly useful for vandalism and recovery. Why should an average user use revisions to check on approval or rejection of requests? Why must an article be added into a watchlist to see if a renaming happens technically (and uncontroversially)? If I can't go "rhetorical" (I'm not, am I?), then I don't know what else to say. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Unreal7's nominations seem to keep breaking the autogenerated listings by RMbot. The rationales, username and timestamps are always missing from the listing. As this user nominates alot of things at RM, he seems to be the only person breaking the listing. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
{{Requested move/dated}}
from other RMs rather than using {{subst:Requested move}}
.
Jenks24 (
talk) 05:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I made an to state that {{ movenotice}} should be placed at the top of any page up for moving (vs can be placed). I believe all readers and editors of a page should be informed of an ongoing move discussion, in the same way we inform them of ongoing AfD, CfD, DR, etc discussions. There isn't any reason to allow move discussions to be seen only by those who happen to look at the talk page or who already were watching it. One way to address this would be to ask the bot to add these automatically, including linking to the correct rename title, and to the discussion.[-- KarlB ( talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Signature restored, after the editor had inadvertently removed it earlier.
Since these edits all seem to directly relate to WP:RM it seems necessary to note this here. At least since Feb 2012 a series of IP addresses in Ho Chi Minh City have been setting up Miszabot archiving on various controverted articles which are the location of multiple RMs. The IP sets the bot to archive the previous contrary/failed RM, coincidentally when the Miszabot clicks in, then a new RM starts. RMs more or less affected appear to include:
I am not sure how many others are affected. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. I will go inform Kauffner now if a bot hasn't. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that on several RMs, where someone sets up archiving, and previous RM requests get archived, and immediately after, a new RM appears. There's someone going around setting up archiving to leave 0 threads visible and a freshness max of only 15 days (I had to fix a very stupid bot archival where the person who set up the bot said use archive 1, when the archives already existed and went to 3... dumping new threads into a closed archive, so I went poking and found a few more, two months ago). --
76.65.131.160 (
talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How and when will such a discussion be closed?-- sicaspi ( talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone fancy taking a look at Talk:S/2012 P 1#Requested move? 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello all. I think I need some help. Please see User talk:Bananas Monkey#Please stop all page moves. I don't think I've scratched the surface of all of this user's incorrect page moves ( move log). I've spent over an hour cleaning up just a bunch from the front end of his contributions but there are many more. I don't know that they're all wrong, but just about everything I looked at was.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Something wrong with the RM bot? I haven't seen a new listing in almost a day. Is it possible that we've finally reached perfection in article titling across all of WP? Oh, what a glorious day! Dohn joe ( talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to find the request which has stopped the bot working, but haven't had any luck. The user running the bot,
HardBoiledEggs has been inactive for months, although we've tried to contact them on their talk page. There's a notice here
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RM bot inactive, but it doesn't seem to have attracted any help.
User:Wbm1058 has been going over it, but doesn't seem to have had any more success than I have yet. Does anyone here know much about RM bot?
MatthewHaywood (
talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion on 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing as it is the last move to be processed by RM bot, and is suspected to have interfered with the bot due to its being moved during the RM process. The discussion can be reopened in due course of there is no effect on the bot. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a query at BOTREQ since VPtechnical doesn't seem to be coming up with solutions yet. -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned it in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. Guess we'll see what happens. Marcus Qwertyus 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think updating WP:RM manually might just mess things up even more.
What we can see from the history of RM bot is that it stopped editing at 9:30 July 18, 2012. See: Special:Contributions/RM_bot.
Does anyone know what is supposed to trigger the RM bot to run? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I also think manual updates make the situation more difficult to trouble shoot. Note that MatthewHaywood was already confused into thinking the situation had been resolved. I think it takes pressure off fixing the real problem (the bot), and perpetuates the situation.
One thing we desperately need is documentation of how the bot works. If there is any, I can't find it. Though I'm not a PHP programmer, I can read the PHP code, and make sense of much of it. But there are a few key missing pieces. It includes some files - where are they? It generates some output - where does that go? What causes it to run in the first place? It might be as simple as something or someone turned off the scheduling of the bot runs for some reason, and all we need to do is turn it back on. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to start by saying what a great job the manual updater(s) have done with the page - that work is much appreciated. I was wondering, though, about removing discussions from the page once they're closed. I'd be happy to help, if someone pointed me where to go. Maybe the closers could add that to the list of closing tasks until the bot returns? Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
HardBoiledEggs hasn't edited since February, and I believe his TS account expired. The source is available at User:RM bot/requestedmoves.php. Can someone else compile it and set up a bot at least temporarily to update the backlog? -- Nathan2055 talk - contribs 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
We're doing okay so far manually updating (anyone have any update on if there's any movement on the getting-the-bot-working front?) I dropped a barnstar earlier today at User:P.T. Aufrette's talk page as he/she seems to be most responsible for listing new RM discussions here from the category. Anyway, for the past week or so I've been periodically removing all the closed discussions and given the quantity, it's clear a number of closers have not added this to their procedures or don't know what to do. It would be great if everyone who does closes would add this step to their normal closing routine until the bot is fixed. Very simply, step-by-step (and most of you will say duh, but...), after you perform a close:
Best regards to all.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the section on Determining Consensus currently is biased towards the status quo too much. It says:
lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens
and
if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name
This is normally fine for a proposal that has never been made before, but if we're getting repeated proposal all ending in "no consensus", I suggest closers do often take more latitude, and this should be encouraged. The current wording discourages this.
In particular, in a case where a give move request has been made repeatedly, and each time ending with "no consensus", I don't think the closer needs to have "clear indication from policy and conventions" on which way to go. After all, if there was clear indication, there would probably be local consensus in support of that.
Further, I've seen many cases where those supporting the status quo can muster just enough opposition to each proposal to move away from that name to make it appear there is no consensus, but never enough to show clear support for the status quo name. With such a history, I don't think it makes sense to favor "the most recent stable name". Or, in other words, with such a history, a title which repeatedly cannot establish consensus support is arguably not a stable name. In such cases I suggest the guidance should encourage the closer to consider whether there is good policy reason to find consensus in favor of the proposed title, even without such indication necessarily being "clear".
The most blatant example of the problem I'm talking about has to be yogurt (yoghurt), in which there were eight RM discussion over nine years, all ending in "no consensus", until the article was finally moved and where it now sits clearly stable. Also there were repeated "no consensus" discussions at Cork (city) until it was finally unilaterally moved by an admin, and has been stable ever since. Jerusalem Day (Yom Yerushalayim) is another example. Also HO scale (H0 scale).
So, what I'm proposing is that specifically when there is a history of "no consensus" results for previous attempts to move a given article, that the current title be given less weight as "stable".
Specifically, I'd like to change this paragraph:
to (splitting the existing paragraph into two and adding the third):
However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. If the most recent stable name is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination.
Also, in cases where there is a history of repeated move proposals and discussions all ending in "no consensus", the current title should not be given the normal "stable" consideration, and the decision should be made accordingly. In other words, if this is the first proposal to move A → B, then clear indication of consensus is needed to move it. But the more previous proposals there have been that ended in "no consensus", then the consensus to keep the current title becomes more and more questionable, and consensus in favor of the move does not need to be as clear. After 2 or 3 "no consensus" results, it's probably a good idea to try the proposed title instead of keeping the existing title. Sometimes you can't determine what consensus really supports until the article sits at each title for a while.
Objections? Comments? Suggestions? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're not distinguishing titles which have a history of repeated discussions all ending in "no consensus" with titles that don't have such a history. I'm talking only about the former, and proposing this only for those situations. Is that not clear from the proposed wording?
I'm baffled as to how you interpret a proposal to make an objective change to the process that has nothing to do with me winning or losing anything as, if I don't get my way, we [need] to change the process so I do get my way. Of course, this proposal to reduce bias that favors the status quo would apply equally in situations where I might favor the status quo. I understand that, and I still think adopting this change would improve WP - because I believe it would help us find true community-wide consensus sooner in more situations than not. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How about if we at least decide to temporarily remove move-protection following a no consensus RM in the hope that a consensus may emerge that way? If that option was discussed in the past, as it must have been, I would appreciate the links to the key discussions. No concesus status que bias is a problem as it leads to bad names lasting for years and years. For the benefit of the project we must do something about it. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 05:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(from WP:RETAIN) When no [page name] has been established [as the default] and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the [page name] used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default
Consensus, where not obvious, is the decision of the closing admin. NAC closes should be reverted where opposed, and reclosed by an admin. Contested admin closes should be sent to WP:Move review.
The only problem I see is where there is a consensus that the original non-stub title is inappropriate, but disagreement on what to move it to. Only in such as case should the admin feel that a “no consensus” close should be avoided, and where the case is closely contested, it should be sent to an RfC. However, I’m not aware of any such examples. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is actually an opportunity rather then an obstacle. Why don't we try to make policy only for the cases where wp:retain does not apply, because it is not a matter of English variety, and use it as a testing ground, postponing any reform of wp:retain to a later date when we are wiser about the outcomes generated by the policy innovation in non- wp:retain RMs. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 23:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
and stretch it all the way to situations where the name of an article could literally be a matter of life and death? I find the idea ill-advised, to say the least. Wikipedia is not a game anymore. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 00:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)"In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive."
My answer turned out to be rather long so please read it only when you have the leisure not to rush through. Look SJ, you asked me to give an example of a life and death name choice problem, but any such example I will bring would paint me as a drama queen, and derail the search for consensus by marking me as a problem editor. You do not mean to do that, I know, you did not consider that, but that would be the result. It is quite easy to think of ways in which a non-BLP, non-EngVar name discussion may turn out to be life of death for someone which is not a Wikipedia editor. But whether I can or can not come up with a reasonable example is irrelevant for three reasons.
The first is that my argument does not rest on the fact that it is life or death, only on the fact that it matters. Say that it matters, but only because someone loses their job. Will you be happy then with a policy that may yield arbitrarily senseless results?
The second reason is that when formulating policy we need to be forward looking and not backward looking. The question is not whether it has been a life or death decision in the past, but whether it may come to that in the future. And with the current status of Wikipedia I find a no answer to that one a complete non-starter.
The third reason is that as a matter of common sense, making policy on the basis of the assumption that results don't really make any difference is sensible only if you are absolutely positive that this is indeed the case. Otherwise, it is just not a prescription for good policy. Now, with EngVar cases I happen to share that perception with the authors of
wp:retain. Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine anything other than the quality of service we provide hanging in the balance, and in the grand scheme of things that is not very important. However other than EngVar issues and stuff like San Francisco vs. San Francisco, California, I find it hard to imagine cases where the decision would not have some real world effects that we should take into considerationsee comment.
Bottom line: Time to grow up. Wikipedia is not our private sandbox anymore, our decisions have major implications outside of Wikipedia and it is (sometimessee comment) childish not to take these into account. Any policy that is inconsistent with that will get revised. Ideally, we will do so internally. Subpar, we will continue to do so only when forced by media pressure, BLP obvious case in point.
Last, in the overwhelming tradition of Wikipedia, every discussion must get ad hominen at some point, me. I have lost any interest in the future of the financial crisis page. It may be hard to believe that I will let go after working so hard, but it is exactly because I feel I did my duty there that I am free to move on. Others may follow or not, it is no business of mine any longer. The fact is that I joined Wikipedia not long ago to fix something really small, but every small thing I try to fix reveals a bigger problem. Unfortunately, my summer vacation will soon end and these happy days will have to be cut short. I just hope to beat some sense into you guys before that happens. And even though nobody asked, let me just get something out of the way. I am interested in policy reform but will never, ever, ever run for admin, even if they cancel the abomination of lifetime appointments, and beg me with puppy eyes, and I am under no impression anyone will ever ask. Has the ad hominen quota been filled? Would you mind if we make a commitment to talk about issues from now on?
While this post was too long, I hope it was not too boring and thank you for taking the time to read it. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I should add one comment though. Unless real world effect are clear, such as in "pink slime" for example, we should not make any attempt to incorporate them into our decision making. Our best guide in that mine field of impossible computation is to pick a policy that maximizes the probability of finding the best encyclopedic name, as fast as possible, and provides stability thereafter. We are not to engage in speculation. Our focus should remain, as it was always, on professionalism and producing the best product we can deliver. My above rant should be read as a plea that we take that job seriously and avoid policy that may result in arbitrarily bad choices. That said, the title of an article is less important, in most cases, in my view, than its content, so some perspective is in order, and was lacking in my previous post. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Another alternative I would like to put forward is that we set a rule suggesting that "no two consecutive no-consensus closes" should take place in the context of RMs. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 15:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This entire discussion is somewhat problematic when view in light of WP:RMCI. There are only two alternatives when closing an RM. The article is moved to a new title or it is Not Moved to a new title. Whenever a title is moved, the assumption is that the closing admin judged that consensus and policy supported the move. Whenever a title is not moved, the assumption is that the closing admin judged consensus and policy did not support the move whether there was overwhelming or split opposition. Closing admins are not required to explicitly discuss their closing rationale, but merely required to document the move or not moved decision. The fact that many RMs are closed as Not Moved based on a balance of supports/opposes (especially when policy can be claimed by both sides) does not make them a special case as this thread suggests. And trying to end-run these types of decisions with a default policy is not good business. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)