Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Backlog preventing new move requests?

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)

RM bot, which maintains the list, has been down since yesterday. I have emailed the owner. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also posted a message at WP:BOWN. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Two queried move discussion closures

• I have been caught up in a dispute over two move discussion closures made by User:JHunterJ.
  • This message appeared in my user talk page, on the subject of Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Requested move:

    "Was this concluded properly? Were my arguments flimsly? --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Requested move leads to a move discussion which I did not take part in, and it was closed by User:JHunterJ.

  • Dispute over moving page All That Jazz.
    • Talk:All That Jazz#Move? is a move discussion which I did not take part in, and it was closed by User:JHunterJ.
    • User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:All That Jazz#Move? is a discussion starting with a complaint by User:George Ho querying JHunterJ's quick closure of the All That Jazz move discussion. I moved that discussion to Talk:All That Jazz#Move? (2), where it seems to be continuing.
  • With all hopes for a quick amicable solution to this dispute. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  So, we just resubmit any just-closed RMs which any user disagrees with? (which, BTW, was not closed "quickly"). (Thanks for removing my username from the section heading.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• We really need a closure review process. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I add another discussion in the Minnie Riperton song? Seems to me that the closer has no desire to re-open the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

    I have no desire to see another move request opened right on the heels of the last one. Absent a different closure review process, starting another section here seems to be the avenue (which is what I suggested when you were catching Anthony Appleyard up instead). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 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.

• - No unilateral moves allowed with the exception of moving draft articles out of a user space. Once an article hits the mainspace, it needs to go through a process to change the title.
• - All non-controversial moves should go through the technical moves process. This ensures more than one set of eyes on a move and prevents unilateral moves that cause tension in the community.
• - All controversial moves should go through RM and only uninvolved Admins can close RM discussions.
• - Eliminate multiple move RMs
• - Do not allow RMs where the article content is weakly or not supported by sources—fix the article first before considering a title change.
• - Establish a better discussion structure in RMs that clearly identifies the policy/guideline issues in play, clearly distinguishes between those opposing and supporting the move and deals with alternative suggestions better.
• - Establish a better protocol around post-RM closure options—RM review, re-opening, protection, etc.
• - Create a searchable archive of closed RMs to allow research and establishment of what policies/guidelines are being used to decide article titles.

Just some perspective from someone whose worked on WP:Title issues and closed some RMs. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Mike Cline's proposals:

"No unilateral moves allowed with the exception of moving draft articles out of a user space. Once an article hits the mainspace, it needs to go through a process to change the title.": Disagree: as a regular stub-sorter I'm regularly fixing wrongly-named articles (case wrong, abbreviation included as well as name of organisation, "The" included where it shouldn't be, ...) and wouldn't want to have to go through any hoops to do so.

"Eliminate multiple move RMs": Disagree: if I want to propose that the dab page should be at "Foo", currently occupied by an article, then I need to be able to propose both the move of the dab page, and the move of the article currently occupying the base title, as part of one operation. No point in making one change without the other (indeed, we can't move "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" until we've moved "Foo" to "Foo (something)", and on the other hand once we've moved "Foo", the disambiguation page becomes mal-named). PamD 15:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with PamD. Unilateral moves actually help the encyclopedia because they move things along. Making every move go through the RM process is unnecessary. I personally don't like multiple moves (and tend to skip over them when looking at move requests that need closing, I think they do serve a purpose as a centralized spot for discussing similar moves. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have added another discussion in Talk:Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)#Move discussion II. Talk:All That Jazz#Move? (2) was started by Anthony. If anybody wants to discuss the guideline WP:disambiguation, let's go ahead. However, we'll see what happens here... --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Seriously, the response to every move closure you disagree with cannot be to open a new move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Who says I "disagree" with the closure? Well, if my arguments were absent of guidelines or proof, then say so. However, I checked the arguments and found judgments that oppose my move or propasals of "Lovin' You" and " to be based on mere statistics and interpretations of it and my "unsupported unilateralism"; even Talk:It's Great to Be Alive#Move? II proves that supporters have questioned the obscure film's qualifications as "primary", while there is only opposer. Sure Talk:It's Great to Be Alive#Move? proves how I have not convince others properly that the film is not qualified at either criteria, but I have done a new discussion one month after and got a little better. You can question it to Anthony all you want, but that's all. --George Ho (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Wait a minute: You said in the first move discussion of "It's Great to Be Alive": "Anecdotal familiarity is not one of the primary topic criteria". However, this contradicts the current revision of the guideline in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic". How is "anecdotal familiarity" is not one of primary topic criteria, while the guideline says there is no criteria for meeting standards of a "primary topic"? --George Ho (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I believe you are saying you disagree with it. "There is no single criterion" is not "There is no criteria". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Criterion is a singular noun of criteria. And I begin to think you haven't answered the question about your assertions that familiarity is not one of "the criteria of primary topic", aside from the-"no single criterion"-is-not-"no criteria" part. Why is "no single criterion" not implied as "no criteria"? Seriously, I don't see where "no single thing" does not imply "no things". --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for reviewing RM closes

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)

Strange move closure?

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

1. The requested move was to the spelling “Troll Hunter”. The spelling that sparked the move/edit warring in the first place was “TrollHunter” [1]. Of those (few/two?) supporting the move to “Troll Hunter”, only one (openly) says they can agree to “Trollhunter”.

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.

2. When searching, the spellings “The Troll Hunter” and “The Trollhunter” are a subset of the spellings “Troll Hunter” and “Trollhunter”, which makes it difficult to find out what is most commonly in use. [2][3][4][5]

The spellings “Trollhunter” and “Troll Hunter” also includes foreign language hits, which makes it even harder. [6][7][8][9][10] and so on.

3. As the move discussion itself (and the preceding discussion) states the film is from the distributors' side known as “The Troll Hunter”, “Troll Hunter” and “Trollhunter”. In short, they are not consistent, and probably what has caused all the different posters/covers/spellings in the first place. However, the formal registry names to the MPAA /CARA and BBFC are “The Troll Hunter” [11] [12]

4. The posters saying “The Troll Hunter” have been out since it was first internationally released, or something approaching one and a half year. This is what the article was called from its creation until a couple of weeks ago, without anyone raising it as an issue. The posters now saying “Troll Hunter” or “Trollhunter” probably have been out for about half a year. However, when the film was listed as a possible BAFTA nominee in January 2012 [13][14] it was still listed by its full/long name, “The Troll Hunter”. Even though newspapers often seems to omit the leading “The” in the headline, probably because that is what the cover of the DVD/Blu-ray they got for review says, some of them often write it out full in the lead, or the running text [15].

5. As WP:COMMONNAME itself says a bit down in WP:TITLEFORMAT: “Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). For more guidance, see [WP:THE].” My personal opinion is that both applies: It's a proper name of an official film title, and leaving it out will change the meaning (a general hunter vs the specific hunter, cf Deer Hunter vs The Deer Hunter).

WP:THE says “[...] definite and indefinite articles should be used [...] [in] titles of works and publications”. WP:THE also mentions translated titles, and since this is a film, not a painting, the guideline for visual works of art should in my opinion not apply. Norwegian has indefinite/definite articles, so the exception part in WP:THE does not apply (like Japanese and Seven Samurai used as a counter-example from the move requester), and “The Troll Hunter” (or “The Trollhunter”) is also not a complete new title used in the English release, as also used as counter-examples in the discussion.

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)

When you say the move did not have consensus, are you referring to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, consensus of the WP community as reflected in practice, policy and guidelines, or both?

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)

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/movies/trollhunter.html and the links provided in the discussion, WP:NOTVOTE, no exception of WP:THE despite your personal opinion based on the Norwegian title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the reasons here given seem enough to overturn the close.--Aervanath (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I just watched the version on U.S. Netflix last night. In the film itself (which is in Norwegian with English subtitles), it closes with the credits lead-in "TROLLHUNTER" (no "The", no space). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you maybe misunderstood my issues? My main questioning was on the decision to move to a third title that was not up for proposal, and which also was the spelling starting a long row of move and edit warring. I'll very grumblingly accept the proposed move to “Troll Hunter”, but “Trollhunter” was a third spelling variation. What is the point of a move request and discussion if anyone doing a closure can just move it to a third title when there is no overwhelming (local) consensus for a move in the first place, and not all the supporters of the second title were voicing in on the third title?

And the second questioning was on the fact that in this case what is the most common name depends entirely on which (distributor) version of the film/trailer you view, how you search, how the search engine interprets your search query, and how you interpret those search results. And for that reason I do not think just using common name as reason is good enough. If based purely on the links provided as support for the move request, then anyone could make a new request to another spelling variation backing it up with different links, so in my opinion I think there should be a more robust and reliable reasoning. -Laniala (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a third title was included in the proposal or not. If the discussion throws up a previously unknown alternative, and if that appears to be the most appropriate, then it is normal (and, imo, better) to move it to that title. No sense in being bureaucratic about what was originally proposed or not proposed. On reading the move discussion, it does seem that the discussion clearly threw up Trollhunter and that there was plenty of evidence presented indicating that the majority of reliable English language sources use that title. I'd say it's a good call by the closer. --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break?

• I joined the move discussion as a third opinion after a request at the Film project, and my analysis was that The Troll Hunter, Troll Hunter and Trollhunter all meet WP:COMMONNAME i.e. they are all commonly used titles in English language sources (Google stats and the sources used in the article itself don't really settle the debate either way). I opposed the move from The Troll Hunter to Troll Hunter not because it was wrong, but on the basis that the move seemed arbitrary, and I also noticed that the film had indeed been submitted to the MPAA and BBFC ratings boards as The Troll Hunter, so I regarded The Troll Hunter as effectively the 'official' English langauge name. There didn't seem to be a case for moving the article, and I did note after the move that I found the closing slightly strange, and the editor who closed the discussion didn't address the points raised in the discussion itself so it was difficult to assess the logic of the rename. That said, Trollhunter still met the criteria for WP:COMMONNAME so I don't actually object to the title (or the other two alternatives for that matter), but I do question the logic of the move itself since in the end it seems to have resolved nothing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSCAPS, and WP:USEENGLISH are the logic of the move itself (and I don't see how multiple titles can meet WP:COMMONNAME for one topic). I don't think you're proposing a change to only perform moves that have unanimous support. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see how multiple titles can meet WP:COMMONNAME for one topic I do. If a topic has multiple names commonly used in reliable sources to refer to it, and it's not possible to reasonable discern which is the most commonly used, and all meet the natural and recognizability criteria, then I think it's reasonable to say all variants meet WP:COMMONNAME for that topic. Probably doesn't happen very often, but especially in a case like this case where the names in question are just slight variations of spelling, it's possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's a situation where no title meets WP:COMMONNAME, not for multiple titles meeting it. In this case, "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals", which is what I did (the links from major English-language outlets given by others in the discussion, plus the New York Times). It then goes on to warn about the troubles of search engines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There just isn't the evidence there to support your position that "trollhunter" is more commonly applied than "troll hunter", or "the troll hunter", that's the point I'm trying to get across. The hit rate on google for "troll hunter" [16] is much higher than the hit rate for "trollhunter" [17]. The guideline you applied isn't the problem, it is the baseline you used to invoke WP:COMMONNAME; that is what is confusing everyone a bit here, including me. It seems to me there really is no common usage evidence to favor one over the other. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals", which is what I did, per WP:COMMONNAME. Regardless, pick either Trollhunter or Troll Hunter, and it's a better title than the Norwegian or "The Troll Hunter" for English Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Google searches are inconclusive, per your earlier note. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I couldn't say much at the time since I was holding the disciplinary reins on the affair, though I did research it a bit and pointed out the problem with the requested target. I personally would likely have closed it as "no change" on the basis that it wasn't possible to settle on a definitive "new" name, but there was no doubt at all that "The Troll Hunter" definitely did exist for a long period of time, stable version/status quo, etc. etc. Betty Logan tracking down the official registries answered my question elsewhere in the same vein. The article itself could explain the variations in the title in various releases (and on small boxes like DVD containers) - and when it wins a major award or becomes the breakout hit of the summer, a renaming could be considered then, when there is heavier weight one way or some other. I suppose my question to the closer (JHJ) would be how they assigned weight to the option of leaving things as they were unless/until more information developed on the topic. Franamax (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Though, personally, I would have extended the discussion with an explicit suggestion to consider the new title, I don't see anything wrong with moving the article to Trollhunter. There is plenty of evidence within the discussion itself that the many English language sources use Trollhunter and the closer made the call that this is the more used English language title. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Just like there are sources that says “Trollhunter” or “TrollHunter” is the correct spelling, there are sources that says any other variation of “Troll Hunter” or “The Troll Hunter” is the correct spelling. It boils down to which sources you use and which sources you trust, or how you search and how you decide to interpret the search results. Among the links provided by the move nominator there was sort of conclusive evidence for “TrollHunter” or “Trollhunter”, but the nominator knowingly chose to propose the move to “Troll Hunter” because s/he knew that had the least resistance from the previous discussion. And I'm not convinced to there being conclusive evidence in general for “Trollhunter” being the most common spelling, since the way at least Google interprets your search queries this is hard to discern. And that is why I think it is odd the move closed with this spelling and as said, with COMMONNAME as reason. -Laniala (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  The move closure didn't mention Google hits (which are very hard to work with, if there's a troll hunter in a work sometimes titled Trollhunter, since Google isn't case-sensitive), but rather the reliable sources given in the discussion plus the New York Times plus WP:MOSCAPS. OTOH, the current nuisance proposal to ignore WP:USEENGLISH just because there are reliable sources for more than one English title is odd at best. Ignoring rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia is great. Ignoring rules for the benefit of the editors is not so good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  If you are concerned, why not joining the discussion? Besides, you were the closer of previous discussion, and I would be more concerned if you will be the closer of my proposal. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  It has been amply demonstrated that the discussions are a waste of time. Any result other than the one you seek results in an immediate re-proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  You're not implying my proposal, are you? --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  I thought I was saying it directly, not implying it. But regardless, yes, your re-proposals following Anthony Appleyard's re-proposal after you caught him up in your displeasure with some of my closures. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think possibly the most sensible solution would be to restore the status quo and restore the article back to where it was based on the following observations:

1. Google does not offer conclusive evidence for prefered usage.
2. A survey of reliable sources doesn't determine primary usage either.
3. The film was submitted as "The Troll Hunter" by its US and UK distributors to the respective national ratings bodies.
4. The article was moved to a title that was not proposed, and not properly discussed.
5. The editor who closed the discussion and moved the article has repeatedly failed to provide any empirical evidence of why the new name should be favored in regards to COMMONNAME.
6. The move was based on a unilateral interpretation of the guideline, rather than a consensus based interpretation of it. If that is how article moves are going to be performed, there isn't actually much point proposing a new title and having a discussion about it, if someone is just going to come along and just make a unilateral decision.

The best outcome now would be to restore the status quo and simply re-run the move proposal under the original proposal (since what we actually do have now is an article that was moved without consensus), with the suggestion that the closer actually takes account of the points and issues raised in the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you missed my note in closing the move request and my replies to the various splintered discussions that have needlessly arisen since then. The note at the top of the closed move discussion should be easy enough to find, and in that discussion was a list of sources for the properly-discussed title selected, and not unilateral at all. To sum up, get off your high horse. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  I beg your pardon?

  Of 13 links the nominator provided, and if only looking at what would naturally be the headline, and ignoring any other text and images on the same site that contradicts the headline, then 5 say “Troll Hunter”, 3 say “TrollHunter”, 5 say “Trollhunter”. And solely from these, combined with just one single newspaper (as you said above) you decide that the nominator is correct, all the oppose arguments and pointers to policies should just be ignored, all opposing links are not worth squat, the title it had for one and a half year should be ignored, and WP:COMMONNAME can be applied on your decided title, which is a third title that wasn't up for proposal. I have said myself that Google should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially with such common words and characters as “the” and space, but if this title is so common, why does Google ask me if I meant “Troll Hunter” when I type in “Trollhunter”? [18][19][20][21][22][23]

  If this is how move decisions have been done, and are being done in the future, then anyone can just propose a new name, put up some links that might vaguely support it, and it is a clear move from the way you decided your move.

  And how exactly are all those links reliable? 5 are what I would classify as user contributed information sites about the film, one of which WP:NOTRELIABLE even straight out points as an example of a non-reliable source. 4 are just showing the trailer, 1 is showing the film if you register and pay, 1 I would call a blog, 1 is shop, and 1 is one distributor's site. Did you even read my response to those links, and my pointing to WP:NOTRELIABLE? Did you look at the countering links provided by different people, that were just as "reliable" as the nominator's, and some even official titles. Did you look at the opposing arguments? Or had you decided on an outcome from the moment you saw the nomination?

  I have to wonder if you, JHunterJ, and Jsigned aka Film Fan, are in some way related, or the same user, because you seem to be saying pretty much exactly the same as Jsigned and ignoring any objections. And when I asked you on your talk page, you suggested I bring it up for review, but you obviously don't seem too pleased about that. -Laniala (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Google probably asks you that question because of the region you're in (it doesn't ask me, in the US). Anyway, I think you're making too big a deal of this. Reliable sources say Trollhunter (The New York Times) so this is not an arbitrary choice along the lines of a link that "vaguely supports it". Finally, and this is important, you shouldn't go around making sock or meat puppet allegations lightly. You can get blocked for that sort of thing. Just because a couple of people disagree with you it doesn't make them socks. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly. About as sensible as if I were to wonder if everyone who disagreed with any closes I made were in some way related, or the same user, because they all seem to be saying pretty much exactly the same thing and ignoring any objections. I just cleared it off the RM queue, and had no idea how I might close it before I read the discussion. Having my closure reviewed (and then upheld, as above, or overturned) in a discussion here would have been fine. However, I am not pleased with the silly tacked-on move request to send the page to Trolljegeren instead; perhaps you're taking that obvious conclusion and applying it too broadly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Speaking about broad conclusions, I still wonder how you can conclude only from 13 links + NYT's spelling [24] that this is the most common spelling in existence in the English speaking world? -Laniala (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's not an unreasonable question. But, saying that Trollhunter is vaguely supported is incorrect because it is very well supported. (Which is why I think this is getting way more attention than is warranted.) --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  For me the problem is not so much the end result, but the process that has got us here. There was not a consensus for a move, which I believe correctly interpreted that Trollhunter was no more a COMMONNAME than either Troll Hunter or The Troll Hunter. In accordance with the guidelines there should not have been a move, but the closer performed one anyway and to a title taht was not even properly discussed. This type of action is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia, and not reversing the action clearly advocates unilateral action. If Laniala were to move it back I am pretty sure his action would be reversed on the basis it isn't backed by consensus, rather than "leave it at the new title because it's still a common name". As administrators you should be supporting the process and setting an example, but you're clearly not doing that, you are advocating unilateral moves by whoever closes the discussion. It's a dangerous precedent, and I'm disappointed that my concern is dismissed as being on my "high horse". Betty Logan (talk)

  Note that the close was not a 'unilateral decision'. The title was proposed in the discussion and evidence was provided, therefore it was a legitimate choice. Different admins or other closers will close a discussion differently and a close, once made, should only be examined to see whether it was 'reasonable' or not. This does pass the reasonable test and that's all we should be looking at. Anything more, reopening discussions, new move requests filed immediately after the close, etc., will only make the process meaningless and we'll end up with a system where the loudest voice 'wins'. I don't think anyone wants that. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) Perhaps you could stop casting the action as unilateral and undiscussed, especially since the earlier review found no problem (and it was neither unilateral nor undiscussed). "correctly interpreted that Trollhunter was no more a COMMONNAME than either Troll Hunter or The Troll Hunter" -- no, Trollhunter and Troll Hunter were more COMMONNAMES than "The Troll Hunter". "In accordance with the guidelines there should not have been a move" -- since the current title was not the COMMONNAME (or one of the COMMONNAMES), there should have been a move. "It's a dangerous precedent" - what danger exactly? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  If you felt the consensus at the discussion had not properly resolved the issue within the context of the guidelines, then you could have listed the discussion for further input. You could have contributed to the discussion yourself and attempt to convince us we were not interpreting the guidelines correctly. It didn't have to be closed and moved, counter to the original proposal and to the consensus. It was just arrogant to dismiss the views of the other participants. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't feel that way, though, and the close has already been reviewed above, counter to your claim of counter to consensus. I see your horse is unlowered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  And you still haven't answered how you from 14 links came to the conclusion you came, even though it has been asked several times. So asking again, how did you from 14 links come to the conclusion the original article title was not COMMONNAME, and your decision was? You also have not responded why you call all these 14 links reliable.

  As for me calling the links "vague" in supporting the move it was because roughly half called it “Trollhunter” and roughly half called it “Troll Hunter”.

  From this reasoning, and following your rules you say here yourself, that for you it is just sufficient to provide some hint of evidence that a move can be done, totally disregarding any objections, then why have you objected to the move to “Trolljegeren” as title? After all, there should be sufficient proof this is the original Norwegian title. Ignoring the objections on the first move, the objections to the second move should be ignored too, right? Or can you explain why you totally disregarded the objections on the first move, but don't think the objections on the second move should be ignored? Why should WP:USEENGLISH as an objection count when you say it, but WP:TITLEFORMAT when I said it not count as objection?

  And similarly, what stops me or someone else to just make a new move request, backing it up with different "(un)reliable" links that now support a different English spelling variation? That move should then be done too, right? Or would you now say the one requesting a new move suddenly would have to prove it is a COMMONNAME? If so, then why wasn't that a requirement for the first move? I never got an answer from Jsigned backing up this when I asked, I did get a lot of claims, but no proof, yet you obviously thought there were such an evidence. So where did you get it from?

  If you actually had grounded the move to the proposed title with some reliable policy and/or evidence then I for one would not have complained. But instead you dodge the question on how you came to your conclusion and apply policies somewhat arbitrarily from my point of view.

  As I said somewhere in my starting comments in this thread I think there should be a more robust and reliable reasoning or there can be an endless circle of move requests until someone gets blocked. And why should robust WP policies not apply to the first move request, but only apply to any later ones? -Laniala (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not agreeing with you is not dodging the questions. I doubt any repetition of the same answers will be any more agreeable or the NYT and other sources any more reliable, so I will have to accept your complaint. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So, it's been two days and this is all you are willing to answer... Disagreeing I agree is not dodging the question, however not answering any of the critical questions we have been asking is dodging.

And accepting my/our complaint, what difference does that make? You didn't say you agree to it. You are not admitting you might have done something wrong or a bit rash. In fact, to me it seems you still are convinced what you did was correct, and that you still are convinced those 14 links were all reliable, blatantly ignoring WP:RS, and still think that 14 links means the same as WP:COMMONNAME, which is conveniently ignoring basic logic and statistics (for comparison, that our sun and 13 other stars are "yellow" is not a proof that yellow is the most common star colour), not to mention ignoring all the oppose links. And from this you decided the requested move should be done and overruled any other policies and guidelines. And you even get backup from other admins.

Thus I have little hope of improvement, and see little point in continuing this, but I do hope that some other admins that bothers to read this understand how unreliable the move looks, and how easily this can be applied to any other move request to go in endless circles, when it was based on flimsy undocumented reasons, and in addition ignored and overrode all the oppose comments. And how hypocritical it looks when the closing admin requires the new move request to suddenly follow WP policies, when these were so conveniently adapted and ignored on the first request. -Laniala (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The close was reviewed above by two other admins. That you won't accept that and will continue to complain in the face of any conclusion other than the one you want is not a compelling reason for me to continue to dance at your command. The admin mop calls for accountability (e.g., the review and answers above) but has no requirement of pleasing all the people all the time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't understood it. I'm not accepting your conclusion because I'm not accepting your premises. And you have not been willing to answer why those premises should be believed, or answer any other critical question for that matter.

Og siden du og Gutteklubben Grei uansett ikke bryr seg, kan du slappe av og klappe deg selv på skuldra over nok en "godt" utført jobb. Jeg driter i hva som skjer fra nå av. -Laniala (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am bowing out of this discussion because I don't think there is much more mileage in it. Honestly speaking, after being away from this discussion for a couple of days I think there has been a bit of an over-reaction (from myself included). It is true that two other admins reviewed it, and it is also true that we cannot establish that the new title is not a COMMONNAME; it is also true that we cannot truly establish the others are not either—Google stats are not conclusive and there are decent sources for all the options. In that sense I don't think there has been any grievous misconduct, but I think the admin was a bit premature in closing the discussion. The new target name was never properly discussed so I don't think it would have hurt for the admin to extend the discussion and ask the editors involved to give it due consideration. By the same token, if the discussion was not on the right track then the admin could also have taken the opportunity to correct its course. I generally think such discussions should still be given the chance to arrive at a consensus even if the admin thinks the outcome is inevitable, an extra couple of days wouldn't hurt in these cases, even if it doesn't change anything, but at least editors don't feel they have missed out of the loop so much. I just think maybe it's a point that can be taken on board for the future. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

• Can I close this discussion about English translations of Trolljegeren? Trying to prove someone right or wrong is going nowhere. Maybe we can settle this matter broadly elsewhere, such as WT:naming conventions (use English) and WT:Article titles. Those policies need major attention to everybody in general. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support :) --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• If I could get one more person, then I could speedily archive this. How's that? Or two is enough? --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – The discussion is still very active, so it shouldn't be archived until the issues are resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready to close it? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • No. When it's been idle long enough, it will be archived. There is no reason to flag it closed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

wrong title: Zurich University of Applied Sciences

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)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves or Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves for instructions on how to request its move, or reply here if assistance is needed. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

moving request: Late Bloomers

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)

1. If the would-be article is created, then there will be Wikipedia ambiguity for the title. The new article can be titled Late Bloomers (2011 film) (WP:NCF#Between films of the same name), regardless of the placement of the article currently at Late Bloomers.
2. If there's Wikipedia ambiguity for two topics, a dab page is only needed if neither is the primary topic (WP:TWODABS). In this case, the 2006 film is the current primary topic. Is there some indication that that will have changed with the creation of the new article? (I'd actually expect it to be likely that neither is the primary topic, but it's not a given.)
   • If not, a {{for}} hatnote on Late Bloomers can get the readers to the new article.
   • If so, Late Bloomers should be moved to Late Bloomers (2006 film) and a dab page created at the base name.

Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 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)

Controversial

• Change removed "only" and "requested" from "This process..." removed emphasis from technical sentence as it distracts from the main message
• Revert rvt: please get consensus for a change that alters the meaing of the page

Please explain how my edit changes meaning of the page -- PBS (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no change in meaning from PBS's edit. I do see an improvement in clarity with that edit. I support PBS's edit. Since no substantive reason to object was provided in the revert of PBS' edit (claiming lack of consensus is at best a procedural objection), I'm restoring it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. An objection is an objection, at which point it is up to the person wanting to make the change to discuss said change. Removing the emphasis is changing the meaning by removing the emphasis, with the emphasis it is strongly indicating something, whereas removing the emphasis is indicating it is of minor importance. ie it takes it from indicating that it is the only time this needs to be done, to being a more generic statement. If anything it brings less clarity to what it is stating. Taking it from a specific meaning to a general meaning. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 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)

Is there some kind of context that would help me make sense of this, GoodDay? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The change suggested by PBS is clearer though there is a slight, technical if you will, change in meaning caused by the removal of the word "requested". Without that word, it applies to all moves, requested or just unilaterally moved (I suspect that was the intention anyway). I'm easy with the change (and am curious to see the answer to ErikHaugen's question). --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Ok, people. Maybe this is a good compromise. I am removing "requested" and leaving "only" in the sentence. The "only" is harmless and indicates that we "only" request a move when "a move" (without RM) is likely to be controversial. I am making this change. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:40, 3 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)

Have to agree with that. Done so. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin attention required

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)

Er, the status quo has already been restored (and has been since before the RM was started) – the actress still has "(actress)" tacked on, the dab page is still 'primary'. Marty2Hotty (talk · contribs) made a botch of trying to move Anne Hathaway to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation) and was promptly reverted. Once reverted he began the requested move discussion. Nothing inappropriate, so the RM should run it's course. I also feel it's worth pointing out that a "no consensus" close does not mean things are "settled", though agree moves should not happen without discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'll just point out that when anomalies occur it should be made very clear, right up front, what has happened. The preamble had this statement: "I moved it yesterday not realizing that this was requested before." That is ambiguous. What is "it"? Checking the various histories, move logs, and contribs, I found a mess. Thank you for saying what the true outcome of all that was.

I'll go back there and make a new contribution now.

Noetica^Tea? 07:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. And I agree that the nomination was very vague, though I think the nominator is a new/inexperienced editor. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All good. Let me just clarify one thing. I wrote exactly this, above: "When RMs have settled a suite of titles, it should stay settled until there are further RMs." This is not to say, nor do I believe, that any RM is final. Of course any RM can be challenged – no matter what the result has been. It some cases it's more of a headache or waste of energy and time than in others, that's all. Noetica^Tea? 09:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ♫♪!

Ah, OK. That is much clearer and I agree completely. Jenks24 (talk)

@Jenks24. I don't want to hijack this topic. But if controversial moves should not happen without discussion, then why was Nico Hulkenberg moved without discussion just days after a RM had been closed on it? We can't complain about "irregularities" by editors when even admins openly violate policy and get away with it. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That revert-move at Nico Hulkenberg was one of the poorest decisions I have seen by an admin or non-admin. I believe I said at the time that it should be moved back in line with the closing admin's decision. I was disappointed that when the issue got taken to ANI, it was archived without a conclusion. Even now I would support the article being moved back to the consensus title. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Since I didn't vote or participate in that RM, does this mean I can be bold and just revert the move based on the most recent RM closing? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No because clearly it was a bad close and it was correct to revert the close. If people want it at the other spelling then you should open a new RM. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an absurd position to take. So, someone goes and opens a new RM, the consensus is again to move, and the closing admin again implements that consensus. What's to stop someone then going "well, that's clearly wrong, I'm reverting"? No doubt we would be back here again being told to just open another RM.

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)

There was no consensus to move the first time, that is why it was a bad close. And there was more than enough consensus at the various discussions about his close to determine that it was a bad close. Instead of griping about it make another RM and when a different uninvolved admin closes the discussion it will likely stay at whatever they determined was the consensus. The odds of two biased admins making the same bad close in a row is minuscule. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because you believe there was no consensus does not make it a fact. If I stumble across an admin decision of yours where I believe you've made a poor decision that clearly does not reflect the consensus and where I believe you are biased (none of this is true for Vegaswikian's close, btw), would you be fine if I reverted your decision and then refused to reconsider my action or discuss it further? If no, would your answer change if I was an admin? If still no, how on Earth can you justify your position? Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There were discussions that determined his close was bad. It wasn't a single unilateral person reverting. While I understand its not all about the numbers there were 10 people opposing the move and 3 people supporting it. And an admin who has clearly stated he does not think articles should have diacritics. If that isn't a blatant bad close then I don't know what is. Nevermind bad, it was an abusive close almost to the point where I would want the admin to lose those admin rights. If it was a close case and their judgment went to the side opposite of what I thought was right then that is one thing. But this wasn't even remotely a close call. And yes, anyone can come to me and discuss my closes. However, again Vegaswikian refused to discuss his close and forced the situation to go to a bigger discussion where it was clear people thought his close wasn't good and it was reversed. Until there is an equivalent process to deletion review then yes currently an admin can reverse another admins decision. Just like an admin can unblock another admins block. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 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)

Yes and if half the admins said it was a bad move then it clearly shows it was one that should be reverted and discussed again with a new RM because there wasn't a consensus that the move should happen. As for who undid the move that is rather immaterial as the standard is to stick to the original when there wasn't a consensus so they were just making a procedural revert. As for comment about the second mover stuff yes it is an issue, but until we have a move review process it is the best we have. As for VWs statement about diacritics yes he has said it a few times. And has voted that way with statements to the same meaning in the past as well. It is clearly a topic area he should not have been making closes in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the actions of a man who believes articles should never have diacritics. If you want to make negative statements about fellow editors you should either be willing to back them up with diffs or have the good grace to retract them when you are called out about it. Anyway, I think we just fundamentally disagree on this issue. I will say this, though: (a) "if half the admins said it was a bad move then it clearly shows it was one that should be reverted and discussed again" – I think this comment would find little traction at AN or in an analogous situation at DRV; (b) at least we can agree that creating a move review process would be a positive step. Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The closing had actually been done as it should be: discounting the votes that are not based in relevant policy. You can look at the RM discussion. Bretonbanquet voted oppose on the basis of WP:MOSPN, which is only a guideline and not even specific for article titles. We have more specific policies and guidelines for article titles like WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, and a long standing guidance essay at WP:ON. And then most of the other oppose votes came in as "per Bretonbanquet", so they were also not based in our title policy. Thus VW was perfectly right in discarding these votes and closing it as concensus to move. One of the problems here is that our policies and guidelines are spread out in too many different pages, and too many admins who just count the votes rather than use WP:RMCI. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:35, 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)

Closed as premature

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)

Well, we could re-open it once the discussion at Talk:Champagne is done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While true, it is still an improper closure. The discussion at Talk:Champagne could be informed by the results of the discussion at Talk:History of Champagne, or a wider RFC could be initiated if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was participating in that RM, and I too would like it re-opened. Even if Kauffner was trying to push his POV (something I don't necessarily agree with), there were still good faith support votes from users who hadn't been involved in the Talk:Champagne discussion (myself, Noetica, AjaxSmack). Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot performance

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)

Smithsonian project

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)

Forgot to include the discussion link: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names. Disavian (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional step suggested for Requested Move process

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 concur with this suggestion. Though I'm not sure if we should make it a hard notification requirement (must) versus a soft one (should). And I can see partisan debate making the lives of closing admins a bit more difficult :), on the balance wider participation in move requests is a plus. --regentspark (comment) 11:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If the relevant projects have elected to tag the talk page and have requested notification by the monitor bot. This is automatically done. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin/Article alerts for an example. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with regentspark. Good idea to encourage it, but it definitely shouldn't be mandated. Also as Vegaswikian points out many projects use article alerts so I don't think this would have a huge impact on participation. In fact, every now and then I leave notes at WikiProject talk pages when a RM isn't getting any discussion – sometimes the response is good, but often even the big, active projects like MED ignore them. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In an open, collaborative community, notifying projects is the right thing to do because it raises the probability that editors familar with the topic and related naming conventions, etc. may participate in the RM. I agree that it should not be mandatory, but instead encouraged to improve the overall quality and efficiency of the RM process. The fact that some projects (project members) don't respond is irrelevant. But, inviting them to participate is just one more collaborative approach to making a better encyclopedia. I'll work on some wording and a notice template. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on all points. My point above about not receiving much response was to say that I don't think this will result in a noticeable increase in RM participants, not that it's not a good idea. Jenks24 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I withdraw a proposed move which no longer makes sense due to a consensus page split?

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)

Resolved

I closed it simply as "has been split instead". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:requested moves/Technical requests?

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)

Is it a problem that this page is edited frequently for the technical requests? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have concerns that may look minor but problematic: 1) too many history logs; 2) a little too difficult to find and compare major differences on rules of move requests; 3) WP:requested moves/Closure review is currently discussed and proposed; 4) Archiving completed or contested technical requests is currently impossible, especially at this page's size. WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen does better than this. That's all I can say. --George Ho (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 23 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 believe it could be boldly implemented. I do not think it requires a poll or other formalized process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:Requested moves/Technical requests

I have started a discussion about archiving move requests. Feel free to jump in. --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting technical moves

I propose the following change, with new wording highlighted to the "Requesting technical moves" section:

• If the only obstacle to a technical move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article that is to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history),

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)

 Done with this edit -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Project tag correctly before RM?

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)

Concur. And as I said in a section above, I think the RM nomination process ought to include a strong suggestion that the nom notifies appropriate Projects when the RM nom is made. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work in actual practice? We normally don't add project tags without being a member of the project. So we can only invite them.

But, there are a lot of different wikiprojects (including many I don't know about), which may be more or less appropriate for a given subject. How to find them and how to know whether they are still active or not? Everything between 1 and 20 wikiprojects may be appropriate for a subject. There is a high possibility that after some RM is closed some project will come out complaining that "hey, we should have been notified...and we were not".

The burden of tagging articles to bring them under the scope of their project should remain with the projects themselves, imo. And if a project is too inactive to tag the articles that are of high (or medium) importance to them, then are the members of that project suddenly going to come out of the woods if there is a RM?

This is going to be a lot of extra work (and problems) with very little or no benefit. If a project notices that an article that could have been under their project (but was not) has been moved to a wrong title (in their opinion), then they can always fill another RM a few months later. It's not the end of the world if an article sits at a less than optimal title for a few months. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MakeSense64, but a sentence of "consider" could be acceptable if it is very mildly phrased. A problem with projects is that they often contain groups of like minded editors who do not reflect the broader consensus, this is particularly true of national groupings, one only has to look at the number of arbitration cases that carry discretionary sanctions that have nationalist overtones. Making such as sentence stronger than a mild "consider" is likely to result in even more decisions at WP:RM not reflecting the broad consensus that they should (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can add a wikiproject tag. I will sometimes remove them with an edit comment stating that the project declines this article if I don't think it belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In practice, someone starting a RM discussion should have some familiarity with the subject, and should be in a good position to assess the appropriateness of advising WikiProjects that have tagged the article. For a rename of an historic Hawaiian chiefess, its pretty obvious that advising Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii should be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MakeSense64 and PBS that this should at most be somthing to consider. We should not introduce any expectation that the lack of tagging will invalidate a RM discussion. The consideration should also apply to the closer, in that if there is disagreement in a RM and few participants, the discussion can be relisted and additional input solicited from relevant projects. Also, User:AAlertBot provides a subscription service for projects that automatically produces lists of discussions affecting articles where the talk page is tagged by the project. For example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. For participants in a project interested in RM discussions, perhaps they should be directed to subscribe to that bot. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is something I would agree to if it is subject to some strict conditions. E.g. Only if there is disagreement and there are too few participants, and when the article has no wikiproject tags. Then the closing admin can at his discretion decide to invite one or more wikiprojects that are likely to be interested or informed about the article topic in question. That would avoid that this is becoming used to try to canvass votes from selected projects. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:37, 31 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)

Mike Cline and SmokeyJoe concur, MakeSense64 objects. But the proposed wording is extremely mild "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" - it wouldn't cast doubt on the results of a RM even if lack of tagging was visibly inappropriate. I cite Talk:Ululani again which had no tags whatsoever, and no encouragement at RM instructions to even consider the issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus of course a RM-closer can him/herself note that the article was lacking any project tages and add themselves and relist if appropriate, or ignore as irrelevant and close. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As another I believe relevant illustration, I just added a WikiProject Cyprus tag to previously tagless Talk:Kioneli. This looks like the sort of RM where appropriate tagging might bring more and better informed editors. I am not particularly pushing for this, but given that there's only 1 objection above would be very happy with anyone else, such as Mike Cline, drafting a better wording. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion to move this article with Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon

• Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon → Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon (move) – The game's official title is "Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon", the current article needs to be moved to the official name. However we can't move it because Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon already is made with a redirect. Platinum Lucario (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing instructions should mention archiving templates for talk pages

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)

Could you give an example of what you mean, please? Aervanath (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When one moves a talk page with archives, one should also think about the archives (move them too or create redirects?). Also the templates used by the archiving bots (MiszaBot and ClueBot III) use the name of the talk page so they must be adapted. The same is often true for the archive indexing done with HBC Archive Indexerbot. We should at least mention WP:ARCHIVE.--Oneiros (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming files

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)

Page move discussions rough consensus

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)

WP:RMCI#Determining consensus: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. [...] If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens." -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are responding to my first question and not to my second, and hope my refactoring is correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your response doesn't seem to touch the core of the question - the difference between "rough consensus" and "consensus". What do you understand to be the difference? At WP:RM, which is applicable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS appears to be directed at deletion discussions. At WP:RM, WP:RMCI's description of consensus is applicable. What is the difference between "rough consensus" and "consensus" that would affect WP:RMCI? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is directed at XfDs, but it is modelled an a real-world thing and so might be considered broadly applicable. It sounds like you think WP:RMCI-"consensus" is a special type of consensus, different to both consensus and rough consensus? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Do you think WP:RMCI's description is incorrect or doesn't line up correctly with WP:CONSENSUS? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about "correctess" of RMCI, but I am having difficulty in seeing how its theory and practice of closing discussions comppares with closing deletion discussions. I'm not saying it should, just asking. I do think that RMCI is not a model document of clarity.

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)

Rough consensus has been discussed and used here for many years -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 16 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)

That's more or less what I thought, but in some ways maybe there is a difference. I'm not sure. At XfD, admins are generalled allowed broad discretion to interpret a rough consensus to delete. JHunterJ appears to be doing the same thing with RMs, but some people are upset. With XfD, other admins are very hesitant to jump in and say that they saw it otherwise, and certainly non-admins are expected to respect the admin-closer. On RM closes, there seems to be a lesser respect for the admin-closer discretion. A difference with RMs is that there is WP:RETAIN that provides an outcome for no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Bold page moves where there is a history

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)

What formal discussion? --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By "formal discussion", I mean a discussion that is listed at WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes no. please read the page:

• "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." But see the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves ... This process is necessary if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested."

In reality unless there is consensus on the talk page under an informal discussion, one or the other parties will either start an RfC or initiate a Requested Move. -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That dot point appears to address a new idea to move a page. My question assumes a past dispute over the page move. If a previous discussion revealed no consensus, or revealed to consensus to not move, is it not unreasonable to unlaterally make the move. If a recent RM discussion was recently closed on way, is it not unreasonable to unlaterally make a conflicting page move? I don't see the page saying that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The point reads: "discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus". That is a fiction. Discussions over a limited timeframe rarely reach anything like a consensus as described at WP:Consensus. Such discussions, discussions that require an univolved administrator to close, much more usually involve judging a rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In your "reality", are there no page move wars or other problems? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It used to be that a pre-emptive move could gain an advantage to those who wished a page to be moved, but the wording added to this page "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required, and may not always be possible) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article." has stopped that problem. See John Márquez for an example of this in action. Although you questions are of some interest I am not sure what it is that you wish to propose as changes to this page. If there are mo concrete proposals I suggest that we end the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Page move request involving yet another Philippine city

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)

As I see here, the move violated consensus established in Talk:Tacloban#Requested move. I will make a technical request and then make a page protection request. --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your patience dude. Can we also move Ilagan City, Isabela → Ilagan? (These Philippine cities articles are seriously giving me a headache!) and while we're at it, can we turn the protection on for all the City City, Philippines pages found here: List of cities in the Philippines, before them bureaucratic editors of the local city governments start moving pages again? Thank you so much! --RioHondo (talk) 6:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ilagan City, Isabela → Ilagan - this may not have been included in the list of requested moves for Philippine City pages following consensus made a couple of years ago but since its cityhood is just recent and the overall aim is to simplify article names and conform to standard usage, I am requesting for this page or any new Philippines "cities" articles that may be created to follow the same encyclopedic standard. --RioHondo (talk) 7:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Ilagan City, Isabela, add {{subst:requested move}} and a reason afterwards. Also, add a section title. Simple? --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha! okay. i thought since you messaged me directly telling me to provide a reason for the requested move, that i would just have to lay it out here. But anyway, ill see what i can do. Thanks anyway.--RioHondo (talk) 7:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Move without redirect

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)

What template is it? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the purpose of moving them? Can they just be deleted? e.g.:

{{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)

Fuhghet: They're template sandboxes that wouldn't be XNRs, which is why I asked the question... I was hesitant to apply a G6 where there is apparently a R3 which suggests that it's a bad idea to tag recently created redirects. And besides, it would be cleaner in the various logs that it was moved without a redirect.

George Ho: Category:General VG character subboxes (the sandboxes which aren't at the BASEPAGENAMEs of their parents). Though, that doesn't answer the question I have about requesting no-redirect move. :^) --Izno (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The category merge discussion is closed as merged. Wait for the bots to do the process. Let me know if the process is insufficient or botched. --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No no, not the category, the template sandboxes and moving without redirecting. --Izno (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe WP:RM/TR? If not, how does "moving without redirecting" proceed? --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Got your ping. Got lost in the shuffle. Let me see if I understand. {{Infobox Metal Gear character}} (for example) was formerly at {{Metal Gear character}} and now that it has been moved, you wish to move its sandbox to {{Infobox Metal Gear character/sandbox}} without creating a redirect at {{Metal Gear character/sandbox}}. I don't think there is a formal and pre-tailored way to do this. However, no one (well few) cares if a request is made to do something good and sensible in a slightly unusual way. So, I see nothing wrong with listing this at technical request here. Mechanically, you wouldn't do so using {{RMassist}} but just tailor the request appropriately, e.g., *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)

I know of no such category. Slightly in this vein but far more specific are the categories for admins willing to X. It's an interesting idea. You could bring it up maybe at WP:AN. If it existed I would add myself to it. I don't think these come up often enough to document it on the project page, plus it would be lengthy by necessity, because we would have to go into detail about how this will not work with {{RMassist}} and how to do it without, unlike other requests. Also, while you're right that it is cleaner, I don't think the messiness of doing the move, leaving a redirect behind, and then creating a separate log entry through deletion under a {{db|g6 because...}} is really a big deal at all. You're right about admins sometimes being very axiomatic about CSD, although many will act if they get a good explanation and it's a G6 issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 28 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)

Archiving move requests?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Technical requests. Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 30 May 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)

Why are you equating history merges and technically requested moves? They are quite dissimilar. Most moves can and are made boldly and the log of the move itself provides the record. Technical requests are just uncontroversial moves that but for a technical barrier could have been made boldly as well. What purpose is served by archiving them; what is the need; what is the actual reason you're raising this, which you have not hinted at. By the way, I think request such as this one properly belongs on the main talk page of WP:RM where central discussion of all aspects of the requested moves process is appropriate. This is an obscure talk page of a subpage that is transcluded.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many edits in WP:RM. With this transclusion, and with old requests, people might know what have been already requested before completing the move. Also, comparing one revision to another is totally inconvenient. Shall I give you examples? --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked here what the point is in archiving cut and paste move fixes, but got no answer. That archive seems similarly unnecessary to me. Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding time stamp so this is not archived as I'm about to reference it in a post lower on this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd title

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)

They should probably be sent to WP:AfD; what useful content (if there is any) should probably be merged to Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance and the rest deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The new technical request archiving process

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)

Why deprecating something? How is this not as useful as WP:REPAIR? If you want archiving depricated, then don't merge it back. Wikipedia:Requested moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a history of Technical requests. Also, I don't always check on articles; instead, I used archiving to make sure that one of my requests is completed or moved into discussion. --George Ho (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't know how useful archiving of WP:SPLICE is but as I said in part higher on this page: "Why are you equating history merges and technically requested moves? They are quite dissimilar. Most moves can and are made boldly and the log of the move itself provides the record." History merges leave behind no edit summary whatever, they are only in the logs for the page. By contrast, every move is not only logged but the move itself is recorded in the page history. Moreover, history merges are extraordinary, whereas technical move requests are just uncontroversial moves that but for a technical barrier could have been made boldly as well. I cannot imagine people having any trouble learning that their request was implemented when the page, almost always on the requester's watchlist, has an entry for the move, the log for the page has the move, and the removal of the request is done by a particular user available from this page's history. Anyway, if the only benefit of this process is to make it marginally easier for people to see that a request was implemented, that's not nearly useful enough from a time verses benefit analysis to support the process. If you want that, a much better way is simply to create a basic template for informing a user on his or her talk page that a technical request was implemented. Sorry, but I can't respond to one part of your post because I don't understand what you are getting at when you say WP:RM "has a history of technical requests". I mean, yes it does, the page history, which is one reason why this process is unneeded, so you can't have raised it for that reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:09, 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)

• Without going into too much detail, I'd also be in favour of scrapping the archiving. I agree with Fuhghettaboutit that it doesn't provide any real benefit. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not suggesting to revert the tech. req. process back into WP:RM, are you? --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I don't mind it being on a subpage, I just don't see any advantage to archiving. If the consensus here that we should archive, I'll keep doing it, but my personal preference is that we stop. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• ... As long as there is "no consensus" to merge WP:RM/TR back into WP:RM, I guess archiving or not archiving is up to you. --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have obeyed a fair amount of these requested "obstructed" moves (and changed some to discussed, and rejected one because it was an attempt to move a category), as a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests will show, and yes, it takes extra time logging the moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• As Jenks24, I also don't see any benefit in archiving the page, but will do so if there's consensus that it should be required. Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As the archiving process never had consensus to begin with, and no one other than its proposer has agreed it should be in place (after this discussion section has remained for a significant time) I have removed the archiving instructions and archive. I agree that it's fine if the technical requests section remains as a transcluded separate page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Unreal7

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)

Have you tried talking to him/her about it? The main 'problem' that I see is that Unreal7 copy/pastes {{Requested move/dated}} from other RMs rather than using {{subst:Requested move}}. Jenks24 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have, several times. He just complains about using proper formatting. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk)

can vs should

I made an edit 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.]

I reverted the move (and would ask KarlB not to re-revert, per WP:BRD). I agree that in many cases it would be a good idea to add the template; I just don't think it should be mandatory. Compared to an article being put up for deletion, move requests are lower-stakes affairs, sometimes involving no more than a change in capitalization. I don't see why we need to require people to place a template on an article in all cases. Note: this change is proposed for the WP:Requested moves/Controversial transcluded subpage; I brought the discussion here for a wider audience. Dohn joe (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

and just as often, they are massive debates that take place over years. RM is for controversial or otherwise difficult moves; simple moves (like capitalization, spelling, etc) are just done automatically, or can be done using simple templates. These are moves that people are usually debating for some reason. While I'm sure exceptions will be made, IMO (a) the language should be more forceful and (b) the bot should be changed to add this automatically; if the template is *really* inappropriate it can always be removed - but I've added the template to several contentious discussions, where the proposers hadn't thought to add it. In any case, the language I added was should not absolutely must--KarlB (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Again, the purpose of these changes is to encourage the use of these templates a bit more strongly, not mandate their use.--KarlB (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh City IP setting up Miszabot archiving on RMs

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:

• Talk:Praha hlavní nádraží - immediately prior to recent no consensus RM2 - I have left a more detailed timeline there.
• Talk:Black Caviar - edit immediately prior to recent successful RM2 and move
• Talk:Inter Milan - set up to 90 days and reset to 60 days immediately prior to recent successful RM2 and move
• Talk:Lady Trieu - edit immediately prior to recent successful RM2 and move

I am not sure how many others are affected. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In each case, User:Kauffner had lost an RM before and started a new RM after the archiving of the previous discussion. This certainly calls for a sock-puppet investigation. And there are more: This one shows a similar attempt to set up MiszaBot archiving where Kauffner had lost an RM, but as a subsequent editor noted, whoever set up autoarchiving was an idiot, they broke the existing archives!!!. And he's trying it again here. Kauffner keeps saying how incivil it is to point out his bad behavior, but this is too much. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 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)

Closure

How and when will such a discussion be closed?--sicaspi (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Aervanath (talk) 23:13, 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)

Can I please second that request? Please put this out of its misery, particularly as public interest in the article's subject is higher now and will be dropping away. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Jenks24.--Aervanath (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Bananas Monkey

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)

RM Bot not working

What's the deal?

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)

Nope, unfortunately not, I made a request yesterday which still hasn't been posted up. My post on the talk page (Talk:Replica Titanic) was modified by a bot though - is that RM bot at work? Bit worried I've crashed the bot somehow, I do seem to have the kiss of death with these things :) MatthewHaywood (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think it was you. I've notified the bot operator about the issue, so we'll see what they say. Dohn joe (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. MatthewHaywood (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. The most recent move request to show up on the page is now some 40 hours old. Nothing at all from yesterday or today, including a move request I posted to the article talk page yesterday morning. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to /Current discussions to let the great unwashed know. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 16:15, 20 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've added a notice at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#RM_bot_inactive. MatthewHaywood (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If this continues for another few days, we may have to temporarily go back to a manually updated page.--Aervanath (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean manually sorting through CAT:RM? Don't envy that job... It has been suggested at WP:VPT that as the source code to the bot is available, someone else could take it over. Does anyone here have the technical expertise? MatthewHaywood (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Caveat geek! The code at User:RM bot/requestedmoves.php is Harej's old version, vintage January 1, 2010. I think HBE has made several changes since then. I don't speak PHP (be it ever so part Danish), so I will abstain from volunteering. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh strewth, this really is a foul up. Is there really no-one here with any idea how to sort this? MatthewHaywood (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the code somewhere? I can make suggestions, but my PHP is rusty. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the VP thread was archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_101 -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the ANI thread was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761 -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:21, 30 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)

Seemed like a good theory, but it didn't work. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this edit 21:42, 21 June 2012‎ RM bot (talk | contribs)‎ . for Wikipedia:Requested moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that is not documented in the contribution list for RMbot... that doesn't seem to make sense. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:03, 23 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)

The request has been archived to Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_49 -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:18, 30 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)

Manual updates?

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)

The move and redirect at [26] probably blew its little mind. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what sorted it out? Surely it wasn't my closing the 18_July_2012_Damascus_bombing request? That's way too simple! MatthewHaywood (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not sorted - User:P.T. Aufrette did some manual updating, that's all. RM bot is still AWOL. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how manually updating could be worse than the non-updating we have now. We would have to change the instructions on the move templates so that people requesting moves would leave a note on WP:RM that they had initiated a move discussion. This is how we did it before the bot. Another alternative: create dated subcategories of CAT:RM, and change Template:Requested move so that it adds the talk page to the appropriate subcat.

However, both of those options are inferior to having the bot do all this for us; but if there is no progress on the bot front, we will have do SOMETHING.—Aervanath (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, from a computing perspective, manual updates should not be able to mess things up at all. I assume that before the bot was written, these things were manually maintained (with appropriate instructions on the move templates). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the specifics about how the bot works, but I do know it has evolved over time, and everything is much more automated than it used to be. That means it's likely the bot is dependent on certain things being done a certain way, that we could mess up manually.

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)

Agreed that documentation on the bot would be useful. But I'm with Aervanath on not waiting -- I don't think there's a risk of "taking pressure off fixing the real problem" -- the real real problem (IMO) is that the process evolved to the point where the undocumented bot processing got so good as to seem indispensable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was properly documented so we could rely on it and figure out how to quickly fix it when there is a problem, it would be okay for it to be indispensable. In my lifetime cars have changed from things you can work on yourself to things you can't. So it is with RM processing, LOL. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and in the absence of that proper documentation the other recourse is to make it dispensable again. By manual updates. If and when the documentation is properized, we can again cease the manual updates. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Manual removal

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)

Thanks! Most of the Backlog are still open. I've been removing them from the list periodically, so there may be just a few on the list which have been closed—most have not! Those editors who normally close out these discussions are encouraged to continue to do so as they normally would to clear the backlog.—Wbm1058 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RMBot is officially dead

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)

I would suggest pinging WP:Bot requests. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Need_new_operator_for_User:RM_bot--Aervanath (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

New bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RMCD bot -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

RMCD bot (talk · contribs) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try to add one step to your closing checklist for the moment

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:

1. Copy the name of the page (highlight then ctrl/cmd+c);
2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions and click edit this page;
3. Use your computer's find function (ctrl/cmd+f; paste the text you copied ctrl/cmd+v, then hit enter/return;
4. Remove the entire entry you just found and leave one line between the discussion above and below;
5. You might use an edit summary such as "remove 1, now closed";
6. Save the page.

Best regards to all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

managing repeated "no consensus" decisions

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:

If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority). 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.

to (splitting the existing paragraph into two and adding the third):

If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority).

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)

• It's the objective WP:RETAIN that needs respect, not the subjective "recent stable version". WP:RETAIN, like WP:ENGVAR, gives weight to original article writers, which is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this proposed language in B2C’s comment above 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. a bit sophomoric in that it essentially says if we don’t win our first RM, then just keep nominating it and the closer eventually has to discount those who oppose our position and we will win. It is language that is directly designed to accomplish this: [27] and thus would be very bad policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, also known as success by exhausting the opposition. older ≠ wiser 05:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys are misunderstanding. There is no evidence in any of those cases that suggests change finally prevailed because the opposition was exhausted. In every case, if the opposition ever had a strong case for retaining the original title, they could have mounted a request to restore the original title after the move. My point is that a history of "no local consensus" RM results often suggests that there is community consensus in favor of the move, and this can only be proven by actually moving the article to the proposed title. If, some time after the move, there is still strong support for moving it back to the original title, then it's truly a "no consensus" case. I'm not saying that's impossible, just that it's rare. Usually, it turns out that the proposed move actually did have consensus support, it was just obscured by the numbers that came out to defend the status quo. I see it time and time again. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary I think you fundamentaly don't accede to the reality that you can lose a RM decision (based on your position) and that the resulting title is the right title for WP. A no consensus decision, whatever the rationale, is consistent with typical outcomes of RM discussions. That's part and parcel of the process. I don't think it is prudent to essentially say,Well when I lose an RM discussion to no consensus decision, we need to change the process to ensure I win. I suspect, and this can only a suspicion, that if you were on the winning side of an no consensus decision you would vehemently oppose any process modification that artbitrary put you on the losing side. If you are unsatisfied with the breath and depth of community consensus in a typical RM, then propose universal changes to the process that ensure all RMs (original and subsequent) generate the necessary consensus to represent the communities' position on the title. But, the idea that if I don't get my way, we to change the process so I do get my way is a non-starter. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, Mike, try to be objective.

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)

Why not follow WP:RETAIN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the variety of English in use, i.e. American vs. British, is of much relevance to the discussion, but perhaps if you could offer more than one sentence I will be enlightened. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten that not all page-move long-running disputes are not dialect-based (most of them are). The principle of WP:RETAIN is that:

(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

Why not use this principle wherever a page move request results in, and remains in, "no consensus"? It is a definitive tie-breaker, and non-arbitrary. It gives weight to original page-writers, which I think most would agree is a good thing. It is also a decision not locked in stone. A future discussion can always discover a new consensus based on new information or new reasoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That also has the added plus of being consistent with Afd, where a no consensus results in a keep. Consistency in procedures across wp is a plus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How does that address the case where the repeated no consensus discussions are to overturn a previous move? Does the no consensus need to close as supporting the last move? Also one point on no consensus decisions. Consensus is in the eye of the reader. All to often there is no consensus and we have ~vote counting. Those on compounded by NAC decisions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeated “no consensus” should see the page moved back to its first non-stub title. The first “no consensus” decision should see the page moved back to its first non-stub title. Anything else encourages the bold page move as the first step of a WP:GAME.

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)

Can you point to any examples where "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" could not, or should not, apply? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I got it now. SmokyJoe, your use of square brackets to indicate where you changed the quote from the original to your novel policy suggestion was not clear to me, but I'll take the blame for that. So as I understand you now, you suggest that we take the policy motivated by the statement

"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."

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)

The line that I quoted, stretched to apply to any page name whether ENGVAR or not, is the pseudo policy that is already applied by default. The principle is: If there is no consensus to move, you may not move; applicable retrospectively.

You wrote: “Situations where the name of an article could literally be a matter of life and death?”

Surely, such a case would be readily resolvable by discussion? Or are you seeking a formula that resolves life-and-death matters without discussion? Note that the WP:RETAIN line relies on “discussion cannot resolve the issue” as a premise.

Again, do you know of any examples where this could be a problem? Can you think of any? You reference to “life and death” suggests a BLP concern. Why would WP:BLP not be the applicable policy?

I see that you are currently upset by the RM close at 2007–2012 global financial crisis. The WP:RETAIN principle would see the “no consensus” close send the page back to Financial crisis of 2007-2008 (which I believe Fred Bauder chose, 19:11, 17 September 2008) unless there were a consensus against that title.

Also see Hard cases make bad law. The WP:RETAIN principle works well for the majority of pedestrian cases, such as yoghurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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 consideration^{see 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 (sometimes^{see 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)

"No two consecutive no-consensus closes"

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)

That's lovely in concept, but in application may prove impossible every now and again. I am concerned this may lead to an admin being forced to make an arbitrary decision merely to satisfy this directive and not because there is any consensus at all. I suggest instead phrasing be added to encourage avoidance of consecutive no consensus closes, if possible, or say nothing at all about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a soft guidance in this vain. If fact, I think it is better than my suggestion in that it would do a better job at facilitating only these moves that are warranted in the sense that they would prove to be stable once executed. I expect it should be able to address the problem with a significant measure of surgical precision, i.e. with very little risk of unforeseen complications. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to retain the catch phrase factor, how about "Few two consecutive no-consensus closes"? It's kind of a teeth breaker, but I am not sure that it is such a bad thing. Quoting policy should have some price. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And people will refer to it as FTCNCC anyway so what does it matter that it is impossible to pronounce. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ARN might be better... shorter to type anyway. Avoid Repeat No-consensus (if possible.) But I still think that's fine-tuning too much. If it is nc, then (1st) back to first non-stub title, or if 2nd time thru and/or current name has had long term broad general support, then leave where it is, per RETAIN. I think this is being a bit too prescriptive and rules-creepy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. ARN is better. What you said afterwards was a bit too logically intricate for me to be sure I understood what you wanted to say. Would you mind tuning it down for me? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to be oblique. I'll try: More rules is bad, because confusing, too hard to follow, no room for common sense. Less rules is good because easier to know rules, follow them, use common sense. See WP:CREEP This is one too many rules, and addressing a problem which doesn't often exist, and when it does it is really already covered by current rules (RETAIN). When it does, deal with it one at a time. But like I said, if you're going to have it, make sure it has room for sense, doesn't contradict current rules, and is short to type. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, expect for the part about stretching wp:retain to non-EngVar articles, where I believe a policy has been formed in practice. It was just so shameful that no one had the nerve to try and actually check if such a thing can muster a consensus, and put it into writing. Or, as an alternative, that the actual policy creep that we have seen, in fact never had a consensus, and had been growing in our back yard like a common weed. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be a bit blut now. In my Econ PhD class a reference to the "2007-2012 global financial crisis" is code for what a joke. And everyone knows what are you talking about. Could that be good for Wikipedia? →Yaniv256 ^talk_contribs 05:06, 16 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)

Exactly. It's creepy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is very much instruction creep. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mike, just to see if I understand your line of argument, would you then mind if we add in guidance that suggests that when support and oppose are more or less balanced then a move or not move close should be an equally likely result? For example, a closer that finds herself faced with balanced arguments for both sides may cite a flip of a coin as a valid tie-breaker, or decide on the outcome by whether the S&P 500 closed up (move) or down (don't move) on the last Friday, if that meets her personal taste?

And anyone who wishes to cite wp:creep here any further should consider that doing so would eventually get me to conclude that wp:creep is blocking the way of reform and switch to that talk page to deal with that bigger problem, and whether that might end up causing more damage to the status quo that they seem to hold so dear. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with status quo, it is that there is no problem here to be solved by this. Creating rules for the sake of rules often leads to more issues because situations become more rigid and less flexible. (for example you talk about telling people to just use a flip of the coin or whatever when things are equal. That is far more likely to cause extensive drama and thus harm the wiki than leaving a page at its current location because of a couple of no-consensus closes.) If there was a big problem where lots of articles keep hitting no-consensus over and over again then I could see the point where this could be helpful, but as it stands it very very rarely is an issue. A RfM is a consensus building discussion not a vote so its not a case of 50+1. Consensus is usually considered to be close to a 65% when people are talking numbers, but as everyone is aware its not about numbers but weight of arguments. So really to sum it up, there really isn't much to reform here because there isn't a problem here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest coin flips. I think coin flips are ridicules and was using that to point to a flaw in Mike's argument. If when things are balanced we should be indifferent, then we might as well chose move instead of don't move. But since doing that always is just as biased as choosing don't move always I claimed that if what Mike had suggested was true and there was no systemic bias in the system as it is, then the state of affairs should not be changed by switching to coin flips.

Now clearly I do think that the current system has systemic bias and was trying to ask Mike to acknowledge that. His objection comes from a place that uses sterile theory to overlook reality. You, DJSasso, on the other hand admit the systemic bias, you just don't think it is important enough to justify the cost of having another rule to fix it. That is a different objection, that is argued from a place of personal experience. It is of course valid in my mind, even though what I have seen is different. I only ask you to consider that the fact that you never seen a black swan does not mean that they do not exist or are not important. Especially if I can point to two high profile ones at a blink of an eye.

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, I am tired of trying to convince you guys, when it is obvious you are quite set in your positions, and I am dropping the stick. A round of applause please for consensus building: another glorious day put to waste. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)