Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Adam's Bridge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Reinstate moritorium
I propose reinstating the moratorium on rename requests for another year; they still come in. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- 331dot, is this an ongoing problem? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Virtually all the requests are made by drive-by editors who don't cite policy and don't stay here to engage with us. It's mostly editors from India who believe that this should be known by the local name, mostly as an anti-colonialism measure, or religious reason- but have never been able to show that it is the most commonly used name in English language sources. Even in India more broadly "Adam's Bridge" is sometimes used. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but these would still come, and they would be treated about the same with a moratorium, wouldn't they? Afaict, drive-by:s are mostly reverted for not making any WP-arguments, like [1]. Reverting per "read the FAQ" (and I have no objection to that) or "there's a moratorium" takes the same amount of work. But my knee-jerk reaction is that at this point in time, if someone wants to do an actual WP:RM#CM, they should be able to, thems the rules. And if that happens, we might slap another moratorium on this issue afterwards, thems also the rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to treating it this way. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- To put it another way, I think the FAQ
- "Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, and WP:Reliable sources."
- justifies the routine reverts. A moratorium at this point would IMO only stop an actual WP:RM#CM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to treating it this way. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but these would still come, and they would be treated about the same with a moratorium, wouldn't they? Afaict, drive-by:s are mostly reverted for not making any WP-arguments, like [1]. Reverting per "read the FAQ" (and I have no objection to that) or "there's a moratorium" takes the same amount of work. But my knee-jerk reaction is that at this point in time, if someone wants to do an actual WP:RM#CM, they should be able to, thems the rules. And if that happens, we might slap another moratorium on this issue afterwards, thems also the rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Virtually all the requests are made by drive-by editors who don't cite policy and don't stay here to engage with us. It's mostly editors from India who believe that this should be known by the local name, mostly as an anti-colonialism measure, or religious reason- but have never been able to show that it is the most commonly used name in English language sources. Even in India more broadly "Adam's Bridge" is sometimes used. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support as the Talk Page's history is littered with removed requests (almost all of which have no substance beyond the request itself, ie no sources/evidence). As in a previous moratorium discussion, I might suggest perhaps a longer moratorium. Paris1127 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose current proposal as irrelevant, because we don't have a moratorium on rename requests (which are quickly removed per the FAQ above), we have a moratorium on formal WP:RM discussions. I support an extension of the current moratorium on RM discussions (by 2 years or more), but that isn't what's being proposed here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pardon my poorly worded statement, that is what I am proposing. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, from where do we have a moratorium on formal WP:RM discussions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- See the big yellow box at the top listing the past discussions, the most recent of which imposed a 1 year moratorium, which has expired (actually if you scroll just past that discussion, that's where the moratorium was finalized). That is why we are having this discussion here now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the expired one(s). I read you as that there was an active/current one I didn't know about. So I'm still at [2], if someone wants to to a proper WP:RM#CM at this point, they should be able to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- See the big yellow box at the top listing the past discussions, the most recent of which imposed a 1 year moratorium, which has expired (actually if you scroll just past that discussion, that's where the moratorium was finalized). That is why we are having this discussion here now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support an extension of the current moratorium on RM discussions (by 2 years or more) - assuming that I have understood this - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no current moratorium, the last one expired in May. We can start a new one if we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Technically, we're discussing whether to retroactively extend the "current" (recently expired) moratorium another couple of years. Or start a new one. Or we can do nothing and wait for the inevitable time-wasting RM proposal to appear. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm for the latter. The 2 last ones [3][4] were pretty short (but then, I'm comparing to those at Czech Republic). And we can still revert the drive-by:s per FAQ without a formal moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should compare the last two for this article, in the talk page archives. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- ?
- The second was about twice as big in words. Comments went on for about a week in both cases. Both had a solid conensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. A week of wasted community time. Nothing has changed since the last RM so why go through it again? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, waiting with a moratorium-suggestion until there actually is a new WP:RM#CM rhymes with "moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place)." That was an essay I just quoted. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. A week of wasted community time. Nothing has changed since the last RM so why go through it again? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should compare the last two for this article, in the talk page archives. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm for the latter. The 2 last ones [3][4] were pretty short (but then, I'm comparing to those at Czech Republic). And we can still revert the drive-by:s per FAQ without a formal moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Technically, we're discussing whether to retroactively extend the "current" (recently expired) moratorium another couple of years. Or start a new one. Or we can do nothing and wait for the inevitable time-wasting RM proposal to appear. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no current moratorium, the last one expired in May. We can start a new one if we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gråbergs Gråa Sång BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support another moratorium in principle but I don't think it does any good. We still get drive-by move requests or other comments about the title on a weekly basis anyway. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- But those drive-by requests don't involve discussion. Revert and done, per the FAQ above. The moratorium is about formal WP:RM discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
For the interested, here's an ngram:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- ...which demonstrates that nothing has changed, so new RM proposals will go nowhere and be a waste of time. Extrapolating those curves suggests that a moratorium on RM proposals for at least six more years would be appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- What? I hope your suggestion of this absurdly long moratorium wasn't serious. I agree that a moratorium is not needed for drive-by comments anyway, it won't help. If it is enacted, it should be done "with caution", as the policy suggests, not with half a decade at once. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Extrapolations of data should never be taken seriously. I thought that was understood. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- What? I hope your suggestion of this absurdly long moratorium wasn't serious. I agree that a moratorium is not needed for drive-by comments anyway, it won't help. If it is enacted, it should be done "with caution", as the policy suggests, not with half a decade at once. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
There's a fairly solid support above for a new moratorium lasting at least one year, but no consensus for a duration longer than that. Therefore, I have re-inserted the statement about the moratorium in the FAQ at the top of this page and set the end date a year from this comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)