Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Review move decision

My close at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) is being challenged. Any other RM closers who would like to weigh in would be welcome.--Aervanath (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the close. This is the typical search for the PERFECT title when no one can agree on what perfect means. If nothing changes, three years from now, anyone looking for this article will find it just fine under its current title. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? The word "perfect" was not even mentioned in that discussion. I'll go so far as to say the concept was not even implicit in anything anyone said. What are you talking about? What was said by the proposer or anyone involved to support your claims that "This is the typical search for the PERFECT title"?

Aervanath correctly stated the questions are about ambiguity and primary topic, not "perfection". However, he said there is "no consensus" on those questions, yet the name in question, Catholic Memorial School, as a redirect, has been treated as the unambiguous primary topic since at least 2008, and this was never challenged, not even in this discussion. If that doesn't establish an unambiguous primary topic, nothing can.

Can someone else please take a look? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C - Please consider my use of the word Perfect metaphorically--Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I did. That's why I said, "the concept was not even implicit in anything anyone said". Anyway, the metaphor is not working for me. What are you trying to convey by using it? That efforts like this to make titles comply with our naming conventions and policies better are a futile waste of time? That either title is just as good, or close enough, to not matter? Well, even if that were true, that would be agreeing with the "no consensus" decision for a completely different reason from the one stated (that there is no consensus on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic). Do you agree that there is no consensus on the issues of ambiguity and primary topic? If so, how, given the redirect? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the close. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that local doesn't override broad. The wider community consensus is in WP:COMMONNAME (the common names do not include a parenthetical qualifier), WP:PRECISION (the unqualified names have sufficient precision), and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (since there is no ambiguity, the primary [only] topic goes to the base name). In these cases the naming and disambiguation guidelines agree on unqualified titles. I do not understand Mike Cline's comment. This should have been a typical search for the precise, common name, as agreed upon by the consensus under those guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It does seem that there are unanswered questions in that discussion (basically "what other topics would you put on the disambiguation page"?) If one side can't answer the questions put to it, that kind of implies to me that their position isn't particularly strong (though it may just mean the discussion ought to be left open for longer).--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am similarly confused about User:Mike Cline's assessment of the discussion. Talk:Imaginary_unit#Requested_move_2 is an example of "the search for a perfect title", but that's not the kind of argument happening here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So, User:Mike Cline says he concurs with the close, but offers no clarification on the "no consensus on ambiguity/primary topic" reasoning given there, and suggests accepting it based on the "search for perfection is futile" argument that at best seems misplaced in a case where the key issues about ambiguity and primary topic are about as clear as they ever get.

In the mean time JHJ (who valiantly tried to rectify the situation by creating a dab page at Catholic Memorial School, but this was rightfully reverted, as explained in the edit summary and Talk:Catholic Memorial School), Kotniski, Theoldsparkle and myself all remain perplexed by this decision.

Can someone please re-evaluate it and either explain it in a way that at least makes sense to others, or reverse it accordingly? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Am sorry I have not responded sooner, as I have been working and traveling. When I read the comments to the effect I do not understand Mike Cline's comment I penned a response to Kotniski thinking in error that he was the editor who was confused. That comment was:
Kotniski, in the Catholic School close discussion you stated I do not understand Mike Cline's comment Given that lack of understanding, I think I owe you some explanation. I am fairly confident that the comment you are referring to was "This is the typical search for the Perfect title”. The supporters of the move eloquently cite their interpretations of policy believing sincerely that the new title is better (or more perfect) that the current title. While all along the opposers, equally eloquent, cite their interpretations of policy believing the current title is just as good (or maybe even more perfect) than the suggested new title. When, if we were brutally honest with ourselves, we would realize that either title is suitable for the article, for the encyclopedia. I don’t think the argument can be made that one or the other title actually results in a better WP article. While this type of discussion goes on, and this particular one consumed a lot of time, bytes and emotion, we are spending volunteer energy, not on improving the content of WP and this article, but on essentially meaningless title changes—meaningless, because if they never occurred there would be no negative impact on WP and if they do occur, there is really no positive impact. I blame this on our titling policy which gives license to editors to derive complex, conflicting and in some cases bizarre interpretations of multiple criteria and conditions in defense of their perfect title. The fact that these types of discussions result in no consensus decisions is not surprising. But equally not surprising is the truth that in the search for the perfect WP title, someone going to disagree with what perfect means.
After looking at the RM several times it was clear that editors disagreed as to whether there was or was not unnecessary disambiguation and whether CMS was a Primary Topic. When I first closed this RM in December as no consensus, I was asked to reopen, I did, and got blasted for that irregularity. Now when, there's been essentially no changes in the pro/con arguments, another admin closes it as no consensus. When I concur with that close, I get blasted for using a metaphor to describe the situation in this RM as I see it. The 1st paragraph of the RM closing instructions state: 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. That's a tough road to hoe, when the policies and guidelines in question are so vague, conflicting and subject to countless personal interpretations. As an editor, I have an opinion as to this title, but as an Admin, I judged from the arguments that there was no clear consensus to make the move and did not let my personal opinion enter into the decision. I am confident however, that had I non-concured with Aervanath's close, the other side would be beating me up as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This makes no sense whatsoever. There is no question about Catholic Memorial School being a redirect to this article - clearly it is. There is no question about there being any other uses of "Catholic Memorial School" in WP - clearly there are none. There is no question about "Catholic Memorial School" being ambiguous (in the WP sense - ambiguous with other uses in WP) - clearly it is not ambiguous, by definition. There is no question about whether the topic of this article is the primary topic for "Catholic Memorial School" - clearly it is (not just primary, but it's the unique use of Catholic Memorial School in WP).

You write: "... the opposers, equally eloquent, cite their interpretations of policy believing the current title is just as good (or maybe even more perfect) than the suggested new title.". What policies were cited in support of the opposition, and how, in your opinion, did they apply? I just reviewed all of them, and none of them cited any policy, except for simply stating the opinion, without basis, that primary topic has not been established, totally ignoring the undisputed fact that Catholic Memorial School redirects to the article, has redirected to it for years, and there are no other candidates for it. Several others mentioned creating a dab page, but none of them answered what should go on that dab page besides this one topic (and they were all asked). They didn't realize they were arguing for a dab page with one entry, but the closing admin should have realized this, and so should have any reviewing admin. Did you?

While some cases are indeed about deciding between two titles that seem to be equally supported by policy (Sega Genesis vs Sega Mega Drive comes to mind), this case is nothing like that, not even close. One is clearly supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, conciseness and WP:PRECISION (not unnecessarily precise), and the other is supported by nothing in policy.

Just saying the oppose side is supported by policy doesn't mean it is, at all. In this case, as far as I can tell, it isn't, at all. This is about as black and white as an RM case ever gets.

Maybe I'm missing something, and if I am, that's how the opposing side is supported somehow by something, anything, in policy. I honestly don't know what that is, and if I'm wrong, someone should at least be able to tell me what that is. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- Are you sure this is the only "Catholic Memorial School" anywhere in the world? if so, it can go back to its old title. If not, the old title should be a dabpage. Frankly, I would be surpriosed if the name is unique. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

On examining the other page, it appears that the only rival so far found is Catholic Memorial High School (Waukesha, Wisconsin); if so there is no harm in reverting to the old name, but with a dab hatnopte fopr the Wisconsin, whose name is very similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Even if there were one hundred other "Catholic Memorial School"s in the world, they would not be relevant in determining whether "Catholic Memorial School" was ambiguous in the WP sense, nor in determining whether it has a primary topic, unless we had articles about them on WP (and we know we don't). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also discussed

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Unnecessary_disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why I no longer participate in Requested Moves. Born2cycle's tendentiousness. That is all. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • GTBacchus: I see that B2C edited your post to delete your stating that your fatigue is over his tendentiousness. (∆ edit, here), by using a template to replace Born2cycle's tendentiousness with {{RPA}}. I find this to be baiting and it doesn’t surprise me. It is clear that *personal* attacks according to WP:NPA are meant to cover things like Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. In short, someone should be able to contribute without being attacked for who they are. But editing behavior of contributors that drives others away such as tendentious editing is such a severe problem on Wikipedia, we have a very lengthy page on the phenomenon: WP:Tendentious editing. Much of that page’s real estate is dedicated to describing the hallmarks of it. Moreover the WP:Tendentious editing asks that tendentious editors study that section to see if any of it rings a bell. To B2C: GTBacchus is an involved admin and is a little bit limited in his ability to deal with you; ergo his frustration. I suggest you not frustrate me too with any more of your refactoring others’ posts (that are probably, or at least arguably, spot-on correct). Greg L (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that, Greg. I agree that a dispassionate description of editing behavior does not, in general, constitute a personal attack. (Criticism could be worded so aggressively or spitefully that it would be an attack, but I hope and believe that's not the case here.) I also agree that my ability to deal with Born2cycle is limited, hence my taking myself out of circulation in RM - my preferred area of Wikipedia work. I don't think he respects our cultural conventions regarding disputes, and I think he displays precisely the behavior that the page WP:TE was written about. My frustration with him has reached a point that I start displaying negative behaviors myself when in a dispute with him; Greg, you were recently at the receiving end of some of that negativity, but I think we're okay now.

      I predict that he responds to this tendentiously, rather than by conducting some ruthlessly honest self-examination, which I think is the appropriate response to criticism. It's how I try to respond to criticisms, and that's why I sometimes take things kind of hard here - everything goes straight to heart.

      Perhaps Wikipedia culture is changing, and Born2cycle's way of "applying" "policy" is the new way. It is with humility and some degree of chagrin that I step back and observe, because I would rather follow the prevailing culture than attempt to dictate it. You won't see much of me around here for some time, so that I can be a better servant to the project when and if I return. If it's the kind of world that Born2cycle seems to be trying to live in, though, I think I'll just stay away.

      Incidentally, I believe this discussion is relevant to this talk page, as it relates to the way we handle move requests, although if someone wants to create a new section for these remarks, that's fine. In fact, if it would be helpful, I could try to frame some general questions that get at the heart of the matter without highlighting Born2cycle individually. I would even be willing to suggest strategies for Born2cycle for pursuing his stated agenda - although I disagree with it - in ways that are more commensurate with Wikipedian cultural norms. I have limited faith in the efficacy of that approach, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

      • You are welcome to discuss things with him and me on my talk page. He just weighed in there. With regard to Perhaps Wikipedia culture is changing, and Born2cycle's way of "applying" "policy" is the new way, no; it’s his way. Don’t give up, I’m in the saddle on this issue now. Greg L (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD issue

In 2006 an article was created at ETC 2nd Avenue. In April 2007 it was moved to 2nd Avenue with edit summary "It is only known as 2nd Avenue now". On 31 Dec 2011 an editor moved it to 2nd Avenue (television network) with edit summary "not primarytopic for 2nd Avenue", but leaving the redirect in place. So far no problem. After 2 weeks I noticed the reverse redirect and placed a db-move tag on it, and then reverted the move after the redirect was speedied, leaving a note on the talk page. A few hours later, the page was moved again with the edit summary "per BRD, revert controversial move claiming primarytopic".

Because the article was at the stable title 2nd Avenue for 4+ years, I believe the 31 Dec move was the bold move and the 15 Jan reversion should stand until consensus is established by means of a RM. The other editor does not agree. Without getting into the substance of whether the article is or isn't a primary topic, purely as a BRD issue, what is the best course of action here? Station1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not uninvolved, having fixed many of the incoming links to 2nd Avenue (and for the record, some of the links were not for the Philippine network and very few of the links to the network were of a substantive nature, but rather in lists of networks carrying shows in articles about the programming). I'd be inclined to have the disambiguation page at either 2nd Avenue or Second Avenue and have the other redirect to the one selected as disambiguation page. Personally, I don't think it a reasonable assumption to rely on the trivial distinction between 2nd and Second. Of course, discussing at a requested move would also help. older ≠ wiser 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but do you think discussion at a RM should take place while the article is at 2nd Avenue or 2nd Avenue (television network)? I think discussing without first reverting would bias the discussion should it result in no consensus. That's why I brought this up. Station1 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, considering that I think the term is rather ambiguous, moving 2nd Avenue (television network) back to the undisambiguated title would be a retrograde move that I would not advise. I'd rather the discussion be to move 2nd Avenue (television network) to 2nd Avenue to clearly establish consensus that the network is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. And arguing about which of us was bold and which revert is like the wrong-version problem; essentially pointless. Let's work with where we are, which ain't so bad. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand Station's point. I've actually been in the same boat recently, where I was unable to revert a bold move, and when I posted it as a technical move request (citing BRD, as noted in the technical move instructions), the admin posted it instead as a controversial move request. It's definitely a subtle point, but with the prevailing view that "no consensus means no move", it is important which version goes into the move request. The only thing I've seen in response comes from the closing instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus: "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." Note that that says "may" and not "must" or "should", though. How an admin would respond to that in practice, I don't know. In general, I would say that when the only thing holding back an editor from implementing BRD is a technical limitation, then an admin "must" do the revert. Either that, or that language from the closing instructions should change to "must". Any thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that before we go meta and start talking about changing the rules, we should see if anyone besides station1 is actually in favor of doing away with the disambiguator in this case. It seems lack a radical outlier of an idea to me, which is why I cited it as an example of such in the discussion of disambiguators (herer) and objected to moving it back. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I am also in favor of WP:PRECISION, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:COMMONNAME, and I agree with the consensus that there is no reason for "X" to redirect to "X (qualifier)". Either 2nd Avenue (television network) or 2nd Avenue (disambiguation) should be moved to the base name. As your move of the television network was reverted, it should have remained reverted while the consensus was determined, per WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of it as a revert, since it was 16 days later. If you'd like to ask for a technical move back to the way it was, so we can go through an RM to fix it, I won't object at this point. Or even better, ask for the fix to make the base name go to the disambig page, now that the links have all been patched. Either way, I'll stay out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The edit summary and talk page were both used to identify the editors actions as a revert clearly enough. 16 days later, especially around the "winter break" (Northern Hemisphere) is no time at all. Not everyone is on every page every day. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
IMO, 2nd Avenue (television network) should be moved back to 2nd Avenue. I generally agree with what Dohn joe has said, especially "In general, I would say that when the only thing holding back an editor from implementing BRD is a technical limitation, then an admin 'must' do the revert." And my reading of BRD is that the article should be at simply 2nd Avenue until a consensus to the contrary is reached. FWIW, I also think that it isn't the primary topic and should be disambiguated, but that should only happen after discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
While WP:BRD is great advice, it is only an essay representing a concept that many editors subscribe to. It is not a policy or guideline. older ≠ wiser 16:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
And? It is great advice, and it should be followed, and not only when one favors the reversion, but also when one favors the bold edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Point is that adherence is entirely voluntary and statements that some particular outcome should happen or should be enforced because of what BRD says carries little weight. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Colombiana (film)

The move proposal at Talk:Colombiana (film) has been open since December 29 and I don't know if anyone is watching it any longer to determine what the consensus is. Would someone be willing to take a look at the discussion, close it and, if deemed appropriate per consensus, move the article?

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Admistrator assistance needed

There's a discussion about a move here. Labattblueboy had changed the name of this king, by taking out the Sri. He has stated WP:NCIN and MOS:HONORIFIC as reason, which infact does not allow such a change. Virtually all literature available in English too (2920 vs 3 results in Google book search) refer to this king as Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, but Labattblueboy and a couple of others, claim that Sri is an honorific title, and therefore cannot be used in the title of the article, inspite of the fact this king is virtually not refered to without the Sri part in his name. As the policies Labattblueboy has used clearly state it is the most commonly used name that must be used and if an honourific title is assoiciated with that name it may be included. Now this discussion has turned into a discussion about, whether or not Sri is an honourfic title. I mean that it is not an honourific title, but part of the name, and also that it is quite irrelevant whether or not Sri is an honourific title, since even if it an honorific title it can be used in a Wikipedia article title, without breaking the existing Wiki policies (Please read my explainations there).
His edits on that day show that he has done similar changes in several articles and moved them, without even bothering to check sources (the moves are done on the same day!!). A couple of talk pages show that he has brushed aside protest, refering to similar "policies" as he has tried to do in this article too. Then there's another user (Pharaoh of the Wizards) who is claiming "We do not use honorific titles for non western Rulers" and refering to the very same policies that Labattblueboy has done and this policy.....He posted this list of Kings of Thailand to prove his point, but the very first king in the list has Sri in his name. I am not so familiar with all of the Wikipedia policies on all issues, but have read the naming policies over and over again. I can't find anything of what they are refering to.
I do not know who Labattblueboy and Pharaoh of the Wizards are, but they have take an authoritative "we" poistion as regards to Wikipedia policies, and quoting from different policies (or rather in the latter instance inventing policies).

The status as of Sunday 22nd January 2012 is:

Could an administrator or administrators please come to the talk page and help us resolve the problem of the article title.--SriSuren (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How long does it usually take for administrators to look into this kind of requests? --SriSuren (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

a little help here? the backlog has a backlog

Proposal to move some music artists to their better known nicknames

Why are some music artists listed with their nicknames, while others are listed with their real name? What is the standard naming? See Ivan Shopov and Federico Ágreda, versus Gridlok and Deadmau5, for example. These artists are better known with their art names. Also, Xample could be moved to Loadstar (group) to include his partner Lomax. They're more notable together than alone and certainly more known as a duo. Gravitoweak (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Movenotice

There is currently a discussion as to the future of Template:Movenotice. Please comment at Template talk:Movenotice. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bishōjo game

See talk:Bishōjo game#Requested move

I believe this was improperly closed as "no consensus". The reason given was "No consensus in English-language publications" which is not how WP:COMMONNAME is applied. There is no method in the mainspace I can see to formally request a discussion on this closing so I'm bringing it up here. While its true in academic circles there is no consensus, we don't just consider academic sources; we aren't some kind of snobbish encylcopedia. When more mainstream sources are considered, there is a more general usage of not using the macron (and I'm talking beyond sites dedicated to anime/manga/video games).

If there was another more complex reason for coming up with that, I would appreciate JHunterJ to explain how he came up with the idea that there is no consensus and therefore we completely ignore the 2 most used names under WP:COMMONNAME in favor of the least used. It seems to me like otherwise if the alternate was used "bishoujo" (the request was to move to title "bishojo") then it would be closed for the same reason thereby having a guideline hold hostage policy because neither naming sceme can ever be found to have a clear majority, but both together consitute an overwhelming majority.∞陣内Jinnai 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't closed as "no consensus". It was closed as "not moved". The reason that it wasn't moved is because there is no consensus on the diacritic use in English-language sources (since the term including all of its variants is not widely used in English sources), so by both WP:NC(UE) and the WikiProject Japan's guidelines, the macron is used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
But it is in fact used widely (at least in terms for the genre title of the article). It has become increasingly more common as more sources have been using (as the more recent search for RSes using any related term for bishojo game has shown) beyond even niche sites like Anime News Network.∞陣内Jinnai 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, NC(UE) is subordinate to TITLE. You are asserting a guideline is above a title, ie that 2 common English names exist, though neither is clearly a consenus, use the least one per guidelines and ignore policy which says to use the common one and if there is not a clear indication which is the most common, don't default to one that clearly isn't among the most used ones.∞陣内Jinnai 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:TITLE: "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject [...] If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." I am asserting no such thing about guidelines or policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess you have a very unusual definition of "few" to my eyes then.∞陣内Jinnai 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What's your definition of "few" then? Hit counts in the low 3 digits looks like few among the millions of English-language documents indexed, yes, to my eyes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ, if I had been closing this I would have followed a slightly different process, although I don't think in this case it would result in a different outcome. As requested move was not for an article called Bishōjo but for Bishōjo game, the search by Kauffner is not relevant. I do not think you are interpreting the "no established usage correctly", I see that reserved for cases where little or no information exists in English for something (eg the name of the highest peak in Ruritania is probably only available in Ruritainian sources), I would instead interpreted this as "divided usage in English-language sources". Using the suggestion in WP:NC(UE)
In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title.
I think we can put aside "other encyclopaedias" in this case. Looking at the sources used in the article and the returns of Google books and scholar, (with a brief look) it seems to me that the usage is divided, so (if further analysis confirmed my brief look), I would have closed this as "no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title" and stick with the last stable title for the article which is Bishōjo game. -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds at least a better reason, though I'd argue that that the links I posted on the talk page (all of which are considered RSes by WP:Anime and WP:VG for a topic like that should be a factor too (sometimes they may not be included because of only passing mention which while it would be a RS, would be removed normally as trivial or incidental). If one takes those into account (and I did my best to be neutral going out of my way to find RSes with macron usage) then I believe things would be different.∞陣内Jinnai 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You may have a point, but I think you should now be able to see how the process of selecting a name works. Cases like these it is often a matter of judgement and in this case until a clear majority of reliable English language sources coalesce around one term, the article is likely to remain where it is (as the default RM action is not to move). Come back to it in a year, have another look at the literature, and if you think there has been a substantial shift in usage, then you can always post another RM. -- PBS (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the issue: I believe their is a trend I can document around an increasing usage of two terms "bishojo game" and "bishoujo game" (and a growing but much lesser "gal game"), but given that there is no consensus of translation conventions it will likely never have 1 clear dominant one, just imo become increasingly less commonly used with a macron.∞陣内Jinnai 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
For various reasons there was no consensus to move. The case was not made well. Flaky evidence was presented, like Kauffner's counts of Google books hits, which if you click through and look you'll notice that the book OCR pretty much ignores the macron; 5 of the first 10 books that he said didn't have it in fact do. You need to make a better case than this when you want to claim that the less correct version should be accepted over the more correct version. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I think too much emphasis is/was being placed on those google results. That isn't the main evidence I was presenting and those hits cannot be confirmed to be reliable or not (being published in a book doesn't mean its automatically a RS; there is something called vanity press).∞陣内Jinnai 06:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See #Displacing edit histories section above: probably a similar case

Hi all. Regarding the situation described above (Canadian Comics etc.), I have a similar case. The articles in question are Brighton and User:Hassocks5489/Brighton, a userspace draft. At some point, I will be looking to move content from the draft into mainspace. Only I have edited the userspace draft. Looking at the discussion above, there are some different views on what should be done in these circumstances; has any consensus been reached on what the best approach is? Thanks for your advice. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, because only you have edited your userspace draft, you can cut and paste the content to Brighton without any problem regarding attribution for licensing. In fact, if you have used anything at all substantial from the existing article in your draft (I haven't checked), you should cut and paste, so as not to compromise the edit history at Brighton. If you're still concerned, you might want to ask Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, perhaps referencing this page. Station1 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Station. To add to what he has said, a histmerge could not be done because there are already parallel histories and I don't think displacing the original history would be in the best interests of the article (it would look very odd if it appeared that Brighton had been created in September 2011). As Station says, because you are the sole contributor to the draft, there would be no attribution concerns if you just copy/paste, so that would be my advice as well. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your replies. I'll do as you have suggested. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No punishment for a sock master?

Could someone tell me why the vote of an editor who used sock puppets on a move request still counts in it? Am I the only one who believes that the sock master should be punished by not being allowed to take part in the move? --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See wp:SOCK—perhaps the socker should be blocked? It's usually hard for blocked editors to participate in RMs. This isn't the place to try to get someone blocked for socking, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The sock master was already blocked but the adminsitrator who blocked him said that his vote (but not of his sock puppets) was valid. This is something that I can't understand. --Lecen (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, in theory it isn't a vote but a discussion of evidence and examination of guidelines. If the sockmaster has raised a valid point about evidence or guidelines, then it is still a valid point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

f/F

There's something needs sorting out (I think); it may have been discussed before, and this may not be the place however. Do let me know.

Pulp fiction and Pulp Fiction are two separate pages, one a dab for the term 'pulp fiction' and the other the film. This strikes me as less than ideal. pablo 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have two pages that differ only slightly due to capitalization, punctuation or pluralization. See WP:PRECISION and WP:CAPS#Page names that only differ by capitalization. It makes sense in this case because someone searching for or linking to "Pulp Fiction" is more likely expecting the popular movie, while someone searching for or linking to "pulp fiction", which is not properly a name, might be looking for something else. In either case there are prominent links at each page to help get the minority where they want to go. Station1 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. pablo 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing discussion

I think I screwed up somehow and the move request that I posted on Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names isn't listed on WP:RM. Hmm. Disavian (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Tabsor (1918)

Hi in the process of moving this article from User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Tabsor (1918) it got moved to User:Battle of Tabsor (1918). Now I can't get rid of the "User:" bit. Can someone please help move this article to Battle of Tabsor (1918)? --Rskp (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - for some reason, the new version of the page move tool requires you to select the namespace you want to use. Don't ask me how it made anything easier. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Yes I got caught, saw it just after I hit save. Really appreciate your help. Kind regards, --Rskp (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unseen character (video games)

The page Unseen character has been around for a long time. The term is one that has a long history in the theatre. Today an editor retitled that page Unseen character (video games), even though the article makes no reference to video games at all. (It mentions theatre, film, television, radio, and books, but not video games.) I request that the move be reverted. 99.192.84.134 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Parsecboy (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:PRECISE, titles aren't disambiguated unless the term is ambiguous. Considering the fact that the term is not ambiguous, I am not sure why the page was moved in the first place. I'll drop a note on the user's talk page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly of interest to some of those who monitor this page and do a lot of moves, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#The new, redundant automatic edit summary on page moves should be reverted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Files for discussion (renaming)

Hello.

Where does one propose files ("File:xxxx") for discussion/renaming?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You can list files here (at RM), the same way you would for basically all namespaces except categories. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have subst-ed the template on the file talk page, but the bot isn't picking it up. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I added three magic colons, which at least avoids including the image on the talk page. Let's see how the bot likes that. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoa! The file is at Commons, so renaming it is outside our jurisdiction. Guess I have to close the request. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for trying. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting inappropriate page moves

Is there any way to have inappropriate page moves reverted when an admin action is needed (such as a redirect page deletion) other than putting it in as a Request Move?
In the case of an inappropriate bold edit to article text, it can be reverted and discussed; with an inappropriate page move (which is arguably more disruptive) the page is stuck there while the RM process unfolds. The disadvantage of using RM is that .a) it takes at least 7 days to complete .b) it puts the onus on the editor who wants to fix it, rather than on the editor who caused the problem.
This is prompted by the RM here, but it isn’t the first time I’ve come across the problem; what’s the remedy? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice this page has been fixed now (for which, thanks!) but I was actually seeking an answer to the question. Can anyone advise me? Moonraker12 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The way I'd do it is to tag the target page with a G6 speedy delete notice (something like: {{db-g6|reason=Necessary for page move}}) and then once the target is deleted, the source page can be moved. I guess you could also use Template:Db-move. DrKiernan (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There is some guidance for this at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus, which says: "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." That language is buried in the middle of a paragraph, and puts it in terms of "may" instead of "must" or "should". Maybe we could move it to this page and highlight it more prominently? Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Usually a page move can simply be reverted (moved over redirect). Perhaps this was not the case on this one? Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Using db-move with a rationale like “admin assistance required to revert unexplained/out-of-process page move” seems the best way to go about this; I’ll try that if it comes up again. To answer the last question, I’ve been able to revert moves at times (like here) but this one couldn’t be undone (It had a bot edit on the old page, IIRC); hence (presumably) the RM, and my query. I also wanted to get a sense of whether this was a reasonable thing to be doing. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Also: On the point about no consensus, if a RM is lodged on a page that was boldly moved without agreement, and the RM is to move it back, I would say if there is a lengthy discussion with no consensus on the matter it indicates a lack of consensus to keep it at the new title, not a reason to not move it back. Leaving it where it is would be rewarding the out-of-process behaviour. If that isn’t spelt out in the guidelines anywhere, then maybe it should be: What do you think? But I also think if any like this are seen early enough they ought to be fast-tracked in the manner suggested. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I already had that argument recently, on a page that I had "boldly" moved at some point, and someone else "boldly" moved back, weeks later, which I then reverted as too bold, etc., etc., and there was a bit of an argument as to which title to consider "old". There was no resolution on the process, but you could try to bring it up again. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If an editor boldly makes an undiscussed page move and you are unable to revert it back because of technical reasons, your best bet is to convince an admin to move it back, quickly. If an RM is lodged before that happens, trust me, it is the last thing you want because the whole thing could wind up like this and this (same cont.). Fair warning, that discussion is so long it will take a spare day or two to fully grasp (it additionally spills onto several users talk pages), but it's an example of how RM can go horribly wrong.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

SOS: Requested Move summarily closed by editor with clear conflict of interest, Pan-Wikipedia RM cleanupéself-consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what the second half of your heading means, but the discussion you linked to was closed almost a month ago by Edokter (talk · contribs). Why do you think he has a "conflict of interest" on discussions about The Big Bang Theory? Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

It has been requested that the authority of three uninvolved admins is needed to resolve the closure of the Talk:Republic_of_China requested move debate. We have two, we need a third.--Aervanath (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:jc37 stepped up to help.--Aervanath (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Improper move....

Masonic Child Identification Programs (CHIP) was moved to Masonic Child Identification Programs over redirect. In the past, there was indeed discussion over the title (see the article history, among them MOCHIP and MasoniCHIP), and the "CHIP" was left in there because most states use some usage of that for the program, and that is how most people know it. The move was requested as the second edit by an IP. I would like it moved back, as the inclusion of "CHIP" is a necessary identifier. MSJapan (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as it clearly wasn't uncontroversial and have started a full RM at Talk:Masonic Child Identification Programs (CHIP)#Requested move. As a side note, it's irrelevant that the request was made by an IP. Jenks24 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin RM closures

The last time this was brought up it got messy, but it's something I think should be re-visited. When I started closing requested move discussions, I wasn't an admin, and it wasn't a big deal then. The first editor to assume stewardship of this process, User:JPG-GR, while now an admin, wasn't when he started, either. And, since adminship is officially WP:NOBIGDEAL, I'm not certain why it should make a difference here. Now, there are some moves that a non-admin will not be able to make for technical reasons, but I don't see why there should be any other restriction. The non-admin closure guideline for requested moves at WP:RMCI currently reads:

Non-administrators should restrict themselves to moves:

  • Which result in unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);
  • Where there is no contentious debate among participants;
  • Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
  • Which do not have large numbers of subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the project page, such as voluminous archives (administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).

I propose we strip out the first two requirements. (For what prompted this proposal, see Talk:Saša_Hiršzon#Requested_move and User_talk:Jenks24#Sasa_Hirszon_RM_closure.--Aervanath (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, there's no need to be an admin to determine consensus in most cases. It's not as though there's a clue switch that gets flipped when we get the bit. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that some people have their clue switch set to off. This is more likely to happen in new users and less likely for admins, who have undergone a clue switch testing procedure (RfA). Allowing people with unknown clue switch states to resolve contentious debates might not be very clueful.--Salix (talk): 13:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, that's less likely than the alternative. And in the event that an inappropriate move is made, we can always reverse it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I am the editor who asked for reopening this RM after a non-admin had closed it against the two guidelines that are now proposed to be removed. Aervanath then closed it again before the debate could resume, as I had requested. Does that mean these two guidelines are unnecessary? On the one hand, I have on several occasion moved pages without even creating a discussion for it, just being bold. So, that's an argument pro letting non-admins close RM discussions, also letting them be bold. On the other hand, I think the given example shows why these two guidelines are still useful when there is a contentious RM debate. People can read the discussions if they want, but basically there were only 7 oppose votes to a RM of tennis player to his non-diacritic name. These 7 voters produced exactly 1 English source that spells this player's name with diacritics. Editors who favor the move found 116 English sources that spell the player's name without diacritics. On top of that all official tennis sites, drawsheets and results published by ITF, ATP and Davis Cup site spell his name without diacritics, because a tennis player cannot even register to play with a diacritics name. Nobody can play professional tennis under a name that has diacritics in it. Still neither the non-admin, nor the admin could see any concensus to move. If 1 to 116 in English sources is not concensus, then I wonder how many sources does it take until we can see a concensus? Because per WP:RMCI , section 'determining concensus', votes are to be negated if they ignore rules or naming conventions (since these are based on a concensus in the broader community). If that guideline is not used anymore, then also that section should be rewritten. Because afaik we still use WP:ENGLISH, which demands that we use the most common name found in our English sources. If 1 to 116 is not enough, then how many does it take?
If even admins count the concensus of voters rather than the concensus of sources, then can we do away with those two guidelines and just let any editor close contentious RM debates? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As has been quite sensibly said elsewhere, the issue of diacritics in titles is something that needs to be resolved by an RFC on a project-wide basis. It is only tangentially related to the issue at hand.--Aervanath (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not my point. I am using it as an example to show what will happen when we remove the two guidelines per your proposal. Then non-admins can close even contentious RM debates. So that can also be any non-admin who is somewhat active around the project tennis and wants its guideline to be used. And they can come in quick without letting 24 hours go by since the last comment, as Jenks24 did in the given example case. Would be very convenient. It's fairly easy to predict what that will lead to. Non-admin comes in and closes the example RM as a clear concensus to move. And he can easily motivate his decision based on 'determining concensus' section in WP:RMCI. I'll quote from that section: "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."
So our friendly non-admin will simply say that he has weighed all these elements: the participants in the discussion had a small majority in the vote, but we are required to also give weight to the existing policies and guidelines that exist in the community. The project tennis has a guideline to only use the non-diacritics player names as found in the official source at ITF. This is a guideline that has long standing concensus in the project, so we are also to give it some weight, don't we? Project tennis has maybe 40 active members, so do we give them perhaps 20 votes? Then there is the even broader community guideline that asks us to use the name that is most commonly found in English sources. That goes 116 to 1 in favor of non-diacritics. How many votes we will give to that?
Bottom line: our non-admin will be perfectly able to motivate a clear concensus to move decision in this case that you closed as non-concensus. If we weigh the factors that the RMCI guidelines asks us the weigh, then 7 voters with 1 diacritic source do not weigh up against a guideline at project tennis and the broad concensus of the community that asks us to use the spelling most commonly found in English sources.
So, your proposal would lead to problems, because contentious RM debates will then become a question of who comes in first to close it. The existing guidelines for determining concensus give the closing editor a lot of leeway in how much weight he gives to the various factors that he is required to weigh. And with the idea of not making it as easy to ask for unclosing a non-admin closure, it would become even more a race of closing it first. That will become a beauty to watch. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be overestimating the prevalence of editors who are going to be monitoring requested moves just so they can game the system in the manner which you describe. Note that I agree that such editors exist; I just feel that any editors (admins included) who abuse the system in favor of their own view are likely to get censured rather quickly. Perhaps adding a line such as the following would assuage your concerns? "Non-administrators closing requested move discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought." (Altered slightly from WP:NACD.)--Aervanath (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I like that wording. By "disclose their status", do you mean adding "(non-admin closure)" or some such? Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It already does that. When you closed the RM at Sasa Hirszon it showed "non admin" next to your name, otherwise I wouldn't have known.
@Aervanath. I am not saying there will be many abuses, I am only saying that removing these two guidelines will open the door for it. Most RM do not lead to long debates. But for those that do get contentious debates, allowing anybody to close them will lead to Unintended consequences. Is it worth it? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't say that already. I add "(non-admin closure)" to all my closures because I think it's the right thing to, not because the guidelines say I must (or even should). To answer your question to Aervanath (hope he doesn't mind), what potential for abuse is there? If a non-admin makes an incorrect decision, you can bring it here, to WP:AN, to any uninvolved admin's talk page, and (according to Aervanath's proposal), if any admin thinks the closure is incorrect it will be reopened by an admin. How will that be abused? Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And how will that reduce the workload for the admins? If non-admins can close any RM, then there is a bit less work to do for the admins here, but if just a few cases go to AN then they will have more work to do there. Then what will have been gained by this proposal? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just use similar guidelines to what XfD does for non-admin closers? If the result is "no move" (keep) or "no consensus", then non-admins can close the discussion, regardless of how contentious? Otherwise leave the two clauses in place. I would presume that would be a decent compromise? - jc37 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, that may be the case for CfD, TfD, etc. (I wouldn't know), but it's definitely not true for AfD. Any non-admin who closes an even slightly contentious AfD will get torn to shreds if it gets brought up at AN (especially if they close as "no consensus"). Jenks24 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's the link: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Looks like it is suggested that non-admins avoid controversial closures. - jc37 01:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Thanks for starting this discussion, Aervanath. Honestly, I'm a little conflicted about this. I think most non-admins have the intelligence to know whether or not they can make a good closure or leave it to an admin. The problem is the small minority of non-admins who do not have that clue, and I have seen some pretty poor decisions from (generally younger) non-admins. Maybe the solution is to just weaken the points slightly.

    Off the top of my head, maybe change the first point to something along the lines of "when the consensus is clear to any uninvolved editor" (I'm sure that wording could be improved). I think the second bullet could be removed – just because one or two editors have argued very stridently does not mean consensus can't be clear. I would also suggest adding two notes: one about WP:NOTBURO and that you shouldn't contest a closure only because it was by a non-admin; and secondly a note that non-admins should reopen the discussion if there are good faith objections to their NAC. Jenks24 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I was surfing and noticed this thread. I point out that just because a closer is a non-admin doesn't mean their choices are better or worse. There are times I would wish a new editor would close a rfm rather than a couple of long-time administrators :-) I mean look at this closing that was done as a simple head count (majority wins). And there was an oppose the day it was closed. Totally wrong by wiki standards and I think by an administrator (who I have no problem with by the way). I was more ignorant at the time about these were handled but now after being involved in scores of these I feel most closers would have treated this as no consensus to move or maybe extended the session. Sure I wasn't happy when it was moved, but I bring it up now because, assuming he was an administrator at the time, an error was made and by an administrator. I think I've been equally happy and upset by admin and non-admin closures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, everything is a actually working quite well. In the first instance the first non-admin closure was fine but perhaps a little WP:BOLD. MakeSense64 was perfectly entitled to question the closure, so the debate was reopened and then closed by an admin. In the second case the admin closure, by a long term admin who has particular experience in closing requested moves, looks right. As well as numbers the argument were better made and stronger. --Salix (talk): 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Summing up the above, and an alternate proposal

Parsecboy agrees with my original proposal. Salix thinks the system is fine the way it is. MakeSense64 thinks relaxing the system would lead too easily to editors gaming the system. Jenks24 supports the proposal with some additional tweaks in wording. Jc37 supports the proposal with slightly different tweaks in wording. Fyunck(click) supports the proposal.

If that's a fair summary of the above arguments, then I'd say we have consensus for a limited relaxation of the guidelines; not a total removal of the two lines that I was pushing for, but a compromise wording of some sort. Perhaps this:

Non-administrators should declare that this is a non-admin closure when closing moves, and restrict themselves to moves:

  • Where they have not participated in the discussion in question, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions;
  • Where the consensus (or lack thereof) is clear after at least a full listing period (seven days);
  • Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and
  • Which do not have more than a few associated subpages which need to be moved along with the move of the project page - such as voluminous talk page archives. (Administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).

Non-admins are reminded that closing a discussion is the determining of the consensus of the policy and guideline supported arguments of the editors in the discussion (while keeping broader Wikipedia policy/guidelines/consensus in mind). If the editor wishes to express an opinion on the requested move, then they should join in the discussion, rather than closing it.

In addition, non-admins should also be aware that many editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates, so it is suggested that non-admins not close discussions where there has been significant contentious debate among participants. All non-admin closures are subject to review by an administrator. However, the mere fact that the closer was not an administrator is not sufficient reason to contest a closure of a requested move discussion.

Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edited it some for some clarity, and to reaffirm what a closer (non-admin or admin) should keep in mind. Obviously revert if you want : ) - jc37 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Given the lack of objection here, I've gone ahead and made the change.--Aervanath (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the altered section for clarity, grammar, and conciseness. I have also firmed up a few points, without significantly changing the intent of Aevernath's draft. If that is questioned, let it be discussed here, of course. We have to make the provisions crystal clear; this has been a muddy area for too long.

NoeticaTea? 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This looks clear and consistent to me. A question though: why do we still ask editors to manually fix double redirects? I always just let the bot get them when I move things, which is usually does fairly quickly. Do they actually hurt anything anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are a large number of links to one of these redirects, then those are broken until the bot runs. I usually do those with a large number of inbound links to avoid reader problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, thanks for the edits; they did make things much clearer and more concise overall. I did tweak a couple things:

  1. I changed "where consensus is not in dispute" back to "where consensus is clear", because I think "not in dispute" would be too open to wiki-lawyering. (E.g. "You have to reverse it, because I don't agree with your close, therefore it's in dispute, just like the guideline says.")
  2. I changed "Only admins should close to discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." to "Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved." Since any admin can reverse a non-admin close, I don't think an absolute ban on contentious closures by non-admins is strictly necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, Zhirinovsky's ass RM needs early closing

As a passer-by with zero interest in Russian election antics: There are some things on WP that probably should be steamrollered by grown-up editors rather than following due process, but unfortunately due process was followed and an RM initiated - but WP doesn't really want "Zhirinovsky's ass" hanging around for 7 days in a DYK nomination queue, does it? Would it be possible for a RM admin please find a reason to implement this RM to Zhirinovsky's donkey as per English and Russian WP:RS, and let the 101 other problems with this essay resolve well away from the spotlight and without the deliberate double entendre. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

cf. Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed (keep). TerriersFan (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A problematic close pending

I see the pending close of Talk:Nico_Hülkenberg#Requested_move as being problematic. As I count votes they are clearly opposed to the move. However if you read the discussion, it seems that the discussions to move are based in policy and hence are stronger arguments. That says the article should be moved. Since this is going to be controversial no matter which way it is closed, I'd like to have a few other admins comment on this before it is closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • The ayes have it. The guideline cited by the supporters says "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them.". The supporters base their case on such findings as that 95% of GNews hits drop the diacritic, the official F1 site also drops it and even the subject's English-speaking site doesn't use it arguing that this shows that this "is a well-established English spelling". The opposers call to their aid the patent inaccuracy of having no diacritic. However, the guideline is predicated on usage rather than accuracy so, in my view the supporters have the stronger argument, therefore move. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Nico Hulkenberg" is not a "well-established English spelling"; the Paul Erdős example from the guideline is clear (as he is almost always spelled as "Paul Erdos" in newspapers). Wikipedia is not written in the news style (WP:NOT#NEWS), Formula1.com is not a reliable source on spelling (WP:SOURCES) and the subject clearly prefers the spelling that is correct in both German and English (Hülkenberg), and not the spelling that is (per The Chicago Manual of Style and others) incorrect in both (Hulkenberg); some of the text on the English-language version of his official site omits the umlaut, but his Twitter and Facebook accounts retain it. Prolog (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow the arguments. The best argument from the opposition is that we should ignore the rule to use English usage because there's no harm in leaving it where it is and it's "correct". This is not a convincing use of WP:IAR. (Ok, they don't cite that policy, but that's still what they're saying.) We really need to have an RFC (have we done one before?) to gauge wider Wikipedian consensus on diacritics. Until then, move the page.--Aervanath (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You have a clear opinion on the diacritics debate and should not be closing RMs based on your personal policy interpretations that reflect neither the practice nor the opinion of the community. Let's look at policies: WP:BLP requires that we get our biographies of living people right, WP:NOT notes that we are an encyclopedia and must maintain the relevant standards, WP:V requires that we use sources that are reliable on the issue at hand, WP:UE supports anglicized spellings but not common misspellings and WP:COMMONNAME, which is not about spelling, notes that we often avoid inaccurate common names. Furthermore, even the evidence for a common spelling was weak. The user who again brought up Google Books hits has previously been told that the Books search is not reliable on the issue of diacritics. Only two results can be previewed and both actually use the umlaut. The only thing established in the discussion is that Google News gives more hits for the diacriticless spelling. As noted in The Elements of Typographic Style, newspapers are often "unwilling to spell correctly" if it requires the use of diacritics. Prolog (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm of the opinion that an overarching RfC on using diacritics is needed. It should probably distinguish various places diacritics are used (people's names, album titles, etc.) as there may be good reason to use diacritics in some circumstances and not in others. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • F1.com drops all diacritics as a matter of course, as I suspect do many English language sources. This is not necessarily an indication that names without diacritics are common usage by design. ESPN [1], GP Update [2], the Driver Database [3], Crash.net [4], the official GP2 website [5], gpnow [6], autoracing.com [7], Final Sector [8], The Guardian [9], F1 Fanatic [10], Auto Evolution [11], SpeedSport [12] all use the umlaut, as well as Hülkenberg's official twitter [13] and Facebook [14] accounts. Where is the clear evidence for a common spelling without the umlaut? Furthermore, dropping the umlaut changes the pronunciation and is thus misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The only reason that most websites don't include the diacritic is that they were made using QWERTY keyboards and these don't have keys for inserting diacritics. In any case, if the diacritic was to go then the page should have been moved to Nico Huelkenberg as this uses an acceptable interpretation of the diacritic. Nico Hulkenberg is just plain wrong. We have a ridiculous situation in that we lost accuracy. Readro (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The standard racing reference works are put out by Formula 1, which does not use the diacritic, as you can see here. Many of these diacritic debates revolve around the subject's preference. In this case, his official Website is diacritic free. The "well-established English spelling" standard (WP:MOSPN), quoted above, applies to running text. The guidelines for titles are less diacritic friendly:
  1. "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" (WP:DIACRITICS)
  2. "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" (WP:UE). Kauffner (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hülkenberg's website is not diacritic-free; some of the text on the English-language version is. Since his Twitter and Facebook accounts retain the umlaut as well, his preference is clear. WP:UE is clear too, especially if you look at the examples: "Besancon" and "Soren Kierkegaard" are common but not anglicized spellings, and should therefore not be used, and you can't seriously compare "Nico Hulkenberg" to Florence and Nuremberg. Prolog (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Formula 1 website contains many inaccuracies, as WikiProject F1 has previously determined. It's not a website I would place much faith in over other sources. Readro (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow...I am not sure what to say. I thought he had made biased closes on this topic in the past, but this is the most blatant biased closed I have ever seen on this wiki. Clearly you have an opinion on the topic and have a number of the times in the past closed opposite of what consensus appears to be. You have even !voted in one direction in the past. And now you completely ignore overwhelming consensus? -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Bad decision. Readro's comments are the most important there, in my view. Simply dropping a diacritic is not a valid "translation" of someone's name. It looks here that a personal preference on diacritics is being used to justify the move to a spelling error in a person's name. Resolute 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Very bad decision based on the bias of the closer rather than the discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Spelling rules are moot when it comes to anglicisation of personal names. Nowadays it depends much more on the "preferences of the bearer" as even our article Anglicisation points out. Maybe this should be reflected a bit more clearly in the guidelines. WP would probably benefit from more consistent naming policies that do not leave so much room for widely varying interpretations. Now articles get moved back and forth, and if we just decided the RM by tossing a coin, the WP would probably not look much different from how it looks now. One side of the argument cites the majority of sources using a certain spelling, the other side of the argument can make the case that it is a misspelling that has been copied by the journalists. Articles get moved either way depending on what kind of voters have appeared for the RM in question. It stays a mess. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's kind of confusing around wikipedia these days. We have a closing administrator being chastised for closing a RfM because he used what he thought were the best arguments. Yet do we have this same thing happen when editors complain that an administrator closed the Sasa Tuksar article based not consensus or the best arguments of the debate... he bases it on a debate about a minor personal essay not even on the same talk page. Do we see a huge debate erupt because we get a closure at Mate Pavic, not by consensus, not by best argument, but by a head count of a majority. No we don't. But now because someone chose what he thought were the best arguments, a big complaint is brought up? Strange times we live in. Is there a statute of limitations on bad closures because I have a few doozies to recommend including the above two mentioned items. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that he says he closed it on the best arguments. I don't believe that and clearly a number of people above don't believe that. I believe he closed it in favour of the version he prefers and ignored all the the other comments. He has done this a number of times in the past and this time was the most extreme and best example of him closing in a biased mannor. Someone who has in the past shown preference for one version of a situation (in his case !voting) should not be closing discussions involving that subject. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Because you haven't been completely biased in some debates does not change the fact you have been in others. It would behoove you to stay out of areas that you are clearly unable to close without being influenced by your own opinion -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why other admins aren't rectifying the revert of Vegaswikian's close. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at the RM I agree with Vegaswikian close for the reasons given at the start of this section. -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
So you would perpetuate something which is quite patently in error, simply because some other people do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the error? -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, PBS. The close decision is sound, the discussion remains closed, but the current title does not reflect the decision because the move was reverted. I don't understand why this isn't being rectified. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Two administrators have asked on user talk:UtherSRG to revert the move, or to allow anther administrator to revert the move, UtherSRG has refused and neither of the two administrators are willing to unilaterally initiate what could be seen as a wheel war. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{ec}I think the error being discussed by B2C is that the page was moved a second time without any discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The guy clearly spells his name with an umlaut - I don't think that's really in any doubt. Some English language sources don't use it, but nobody has given any reason why they don't use it, while conveniently ignoring those sources that do use it. Do they omit the umlaut because they believe that to be a pertinent Anglicised spelling, or can they just not be bothered? It's patently the latter, because "Hulkenberg" is not an Anglicised version of his name - that would be "Huelkenberg". So are we to compound journalistic laziness by having an incorrect version of his name as the title? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you know it is "journalistic laziness"? How do you know "Huelkenberg" is correct in English? Who says that English language documents have to follow German linguistic rules? Instead of making arbitrary editorial decision on such things it is far better to follow WP:V and base decisions on what is used in verifiable English language sources. If reliable English language sources use Hülkenberg so should Wikipeida. If they use "Hulkenberg" so should Wikipedia and if they use Huelkenberg so should Wikiepdia. This is what the policies WP:V WP:OR and WP:AT all suggest is the best solution for article titles. -- PBS (talk)
How do you know it was done on purpose? I'm sure you've seen "Müller" spelt as "Mueller", in English language sources; this is basically the same thing. And this is exactly my point - if reliable sources followed one or the other, then fine - but they don't. Some use the umlaut, some don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to care if it is done accidentally or on purpose. It does not matter if the majority of English language sources ignore German linguistic rules. If most reliable English language sources choose to use Muller instead of Müller or Mueller, then we should follow that usage as WP:COMMONNAME advises. It is a retrograde step to try to make up rules that ignore usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem I have with the close is that Vegaswikian stated that "discussions to move are based in policy". The two editors supporting the move that cited policy mentioned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which has nothing to do with proper names; and WP:COMMONNAME, which has nothing to do with diacritics. The relevant policies are WP:DIACRITICS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics, which were cited by one supporter of the move, and also by an opposer of the move, that editor being me. That policy requires a well-established replacement spelling - so where is it? The fact is that there is no definitive usage by English language media - I have provided several that use the umlaut, and a smaller number has been provided that don't use it. So where is the cut-and-dried usage of the non-umlaut version that brought about the original close decision by Vegaswikian? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You write "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which has nothing to do with proper names" then to on to say "The relevant policies are WP:DIACRITICS" yet WP:DIACRITICS links to a section in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which is a guideline! Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics is part of the MOS and the MOS is a guideline covering content (not article titles). WP:AT is the policy that covers article title. In the requested move you wrote "Disagree per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Diacritics and other, normal naming conventions." But as I have pointed out "Proper names#Diacritics" is not a naming convention. Nor did you produce any evidence in the WP:RM survey to justify you argument based on reliable English language sources. Therefore you arguments at the time of the WP:RM were neither based on the WP:Article Titles policy or its guidelines (which are called naming conventions) or on any evidence of "Nico Hülkenberg" being common usage in reliable English language soruces. Therefore I stand by what I said before "Having looked at the RM I agree with Vegaswikian close for the reasons given at the start of this section". -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I did get mixed up with that; it was late. It looks like the opposers' arguments were not based on the correct section of WP:Article Titles, which appears to be WP:UE, not WP:COMMONNAME, and only one IP editor mentioned it at all. So why were the opposers' arguments upheld due to their basis in policy? Is that not just a touch shaky? Anyway, in what sensible world would we have separate guidelines covering titles and content? The name is the same... So I picked the wrong guideline, I'm not a lawyer. Neither I nor anyone else provided source evidence against the move because I (and I suspect others) didn't, in any wildest dreams, think that anyone would move the article. Very few people agreed with the move, and the evidence provided in support of the move was poor. If it was required, why wasn't evidence of that type opposing the move requested in an attempt to arrive at a conclusion that might be understood by the 70% of the responders who opposed it? You know, to try and make it a bit clearer for us? OK, at the time of the RM, you accept Vegaswikian's reasoning, although I have to say I think it could have been handled a lot better. Also, I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of the article being moved back by UtherSRG. But now that plenty of evidence of the name's usage with the umlaut has been provided, do you accept that there is no well-established form (either way) of Hülkenberg's name in English language sources? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Both the policy of common name and the guidance in UE give one and the same advise, they are not contradictory. You wrote above "The problem I have with the close is that Vegaswikian stated that 'discussions to move are based in policy'." Presumably you no longer have "the problem" and so I assume that you support Vegaswikian close. Or was the lead sentence to that paragraph just empty rhetoric to justify a personal preference? -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would that mean I no longer have a problem? I find that a very odd thing to say. I don't know why you are only looking at my lead sentence and ignoring the rest of what I said, or why you seem to be implying that I have a personal preference. I just like to see the correct title for articles - if that's a personal preference, then so be it. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that I don't support Vegaswkian's close. You already know I think he didn't have anywhere near enough material upon which to base his "policy" close - that's why I have a problem with his statement. I made several other points you don't want to answer, but that said, if admins have each other in a headlock over it, then there's not much point in trying to make arguments about it here, or indeed repeating them. Even if the evidence supporting the umlaut was not brought to the RM, it's here now, and can be produced at any future RM, perhaps a more effectively handled one, should one arise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [non-admin suggestion]. I mainly edit on BDPs (i.e. dead people) so am no expert on BLP policy. However I was asked yesterday what improvement should be made to BLP policy, and it occurs to me that a significant amount of grief (like seeing two very good admins in an unfortunate situation like this) could be saved all across en.wp by making it a simple BLP rule that BLPs should be at the spelling on the BLP's current nationality passport for Latin alphabet names. That would be it. Have a RfC that adopts this as a rule to BLP and the remaining 30-40 Czech ice hockey players and 20-30 tennis players who are out of synch with the 10,000s of other BLPs on en.wp fall into line (painlessly, according to WP:RS already in the egregious less than 100 BLPs footnotes) and this issue effectively disappears with no more damage to admins or en.wp. Finish, end, no more fighting. (or almost none since few fight over BDPs). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested closes

Hi, we recently had a situation where a RM discussion was closed by an admin but the result was reverted by another admin who disagreed with the original close. Disputed deletion discussions can go to WP:DRV but that route appears closed to RM. Reverting a considered close seems a real bad idea since that way can lead to edit warring. At present the only other solution would appear to be a relist. Better I think that DRV should be able to take disputes from here since the editors there are experienced in determining whether a debate has been closed correctly. Before I raise matters there, perhaps I may have views here, please? TerriersFan (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is the one I'm thinking of, then it was a close with a result that was unanimous, based on a review of the editor comments, in a discussion by three admins. So having another admin jump in a overrule 3 other administrators, without any comment or discussion, is a major issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It is important that we avoid this happening again which is why we need an appeal process. We don't get unilateral reverts of XFD discussions because a disputed closed can be taken to DRV. There seems no outlet to resolve unhappiness about an RM close and suggestions are welcome. TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The easiest from my point of view would be to simply expand the scope of DRV again. At some point that project will probably need a rename. Now would that project be willing to accept this extra work? WP:WHEEL suggests that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests might be the venue for reviewing these cases. However much further down it suggests using WP:ANI. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
My question would be if it was closed with discussion with 3 other administrators, and a different administrator moved it back, why wasn't it immediately moved back again? Something is screwy here. And now we have an administrator User_talk:Favonian#closing_inappropriate closing to move Talk:Facundo_Argüello_(tennis), leaving no comment as to why, and telling me it's because he thinks the general wiki "tendency" is to move to diacritics. I see chastising for actually talking to other admins and thinking about comments, and nothing happens when a closer leaves no comments and they base the closure on wiki tendencies. What are we supposed to do? Can I contest this is some way? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I continue to be astonished the unilateral move contrary to a properly closed RM discussion has not been reversed yet. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The nonsense about Hulkenberg has gone on long enough and needs to be taken to AN/ANI. On a more general note, I agree that an appeals process in the vein of DRV would be beneficial. If DRV would have us, that'd be great, but we may need to consider setting RM's own version of DRV if the DRV regulars think it should remain limited to XfD discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_22&oldid=1167192556"