Misplaced Pages

talk:Requested moves - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 16 January 2012 (→Also discussed: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:33, 16 January 2012 by Greg L (talk | contribs) (→Also discussed: sp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested moves page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested moves page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Non-admin closures

Even though the Closing instructions#Non-admin_closure advise non-admins to not close RM discussions except in obvious cases that meet a specific criteria, it is, or at least has been, common practice for non-admins to close RM discussions that don't necessarily meet that criteria. This practice is helpful to keeping the backlog under control.

I suggest we update the instructions to reflect actual practice better, but I think we should be specific about when reverting a non-admin closure is acceptable. I suggest reverting simply because the closer was not an admin is not a good reason to revert a close. There needs to be a reasonable objection to the reasoning given by the closer in order to revert, I think.

So, I propose adding the following wording to Closing instructions#Non-admin_closure, immediately after the listed criteria:

When non-admins boldly close RM discussions that do not meet this criteria, others may object and even revert, if a reasonable objection is specified. Simply noting that the closer is not an admin, or that you disagree with the closer, is not grounds to revert a close. Example reasonable grounds are, but not limited to: noting the closer is non uninvolved, specifying something in the closer's statement that indicates a policy was ignored or misinterpreted, etc.

Thoughts? Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C, I take it that by "actual practice" you mean the right that you have arrogated to yourself to close RMs, against current provisions. You seem also to think it acceptable that provisions be changed in the context of a couple of reversions I have made, when I discovered your recent closures. Better for you to disclose such things, yes? See these histories: and . See also this section of my talkpage: User_talk:Noetica#Oops.
You have a history of long-winded and legalistic disputation (exceeding even my own, as seen by some of my critics). A pity that your energy could not be better spent. You dispute with admins over their closures, you seek changes to WP:MOS to support your own preferred position – the list goes on and on. People are noticing. You take note also, OK?
I have no time for this, as I have said to you at my talkpage. I will have to back away from any typically protracted discussion.
Noetica 06:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so disruptive, Noetica? What is that on your shoulder? Wow, from 6 months ago??? No, I personally actually only close RM discussions pretty rarely. By "actual practice" I'm talking about all the other non-admins who close RM discussions that don't necessarily meet the non-admin criteria.

Can we please limit comments in this section to the merits or objections to the proposal? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. Sorry, no time to play. Totally tied up with real work. Let's see what others have to say. Noetica 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Noetica that a policy rewrite in the heat of battle is not a good idea. And I agree that Born2cycle habitually injects way too much drama into the RM process. Things were fairly calm while he was away, and now he's back and causing trouble again. It would be better if he would not take on the RM closing role, given his long history of drama and trouble about RMs. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be very odd to add this language while we still have wording to the effect that non-admins can't close except in cases of "nearly unanimous discussions". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think it's important to consider the message and not the messenger. Whether or not one likes Born2Cycle or suspects s/he has ulterior motivations for making this proposal is not a valid reason in itself to reject it. I think that better clarity is needed because I have noticed instances where a closure is reverted with the sole explanation that the closer was not an admin. I agree that that is not good enough. But I also agree that it's important to be careful of the wording in order to avoid giving editors the impression that non-admins are welcome to close any discussion. But I also think that even when a non-admin has closed a discussion that perhaps some might think they may not have been technically supposed to close, reverting the close solely based on that reason is just getting caught up in a technicality as opposed to what is best for Misplaced Pages. The fact that someone may have "ignored a rule" does not in and of itself mean that what they did should be undone. If an admin might have have made the same conclusion when closing, why should the close be reverted? Now, if there is a valid reason for reverting a close - and it's not just because it was made by a non-admin - I think that should be clearly explained. MsBatfish (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • "I think it's important to consider the message and not the messenger. Whether or not one likes Born2Cycle or suspects s/he has ulterior motivations for making this proposal is not a valid reason in itself to reject it." Exactly. Thank you. I suggest that comments that do not address the specific proposal be ignored.

      Do you think the suggested wording accomplishes what you think it should say? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I make quite a few non-admin closures and some of them probably aren't in the "nearly unanimous" category, but I disagree with B2C's proposed guideline. When a non-admin closes a discussion, saying something like "I disagree with your reading of the consensus" (without specifying something in the closure) is definitely a reasonable objection. I think the proposed guideline (as currently written) would cause more trouble than it would stop because it would make more edit wars over the close and more being taken to AN and/or ANI (and I can guarantee that the result at ANI will be "controversial non-admin closures should be overturned"). If, as the non-admin closer, you think that the user(s) objecting is only doing so because they 'lost' and the consensus was obviously against them, then just revert your closure anyway, because surely if you have made a correct closure the next passing admin will make the same close. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • But the spirit if not the letter of WP:BRD and other policies and guidelines discourage reverting a revert. And if the reverter of the non-admin's close does not specify a reason for reverting, other than stating it was a non-admin close, there is no way to know whether the objection is real or just sour grapes talking. I'm not tied to this particular wording, but it just seems like we should be clear that a revert of a close should be based on some specific objection to the close without regard to who made the close. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah yeah yeah. Just quickly B2C, you are demonstrating that you do not have the manifest equanimity and judgement needed for closing anything but the most technical and obvious RMs. That's all I ever do, for example to make way for a consensually rewritten RM. We have admins for a reason; they don't all meet high enough standards themselves; but at least there is some check against involvement and immaturity in decision-making.
I advise you to live with more of the provisions you find in place on Misplaced Pages, rather than rushing to change them when they don't suit your own idiosyncratic approach. Your accusations against me here do not serve your case, if you want to show probity and a developed ability to separate issues from dramatis personae. Yes, you can say similar things about me; you often have, and you probably will again. I have to live with that. Just try to be good, OK?
Noetica 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Noetica, no where in the proposed wording change is my username mentioned. Why are you talking about your opinion of me, here, instead of about the merits of the proposed wording? This has no more to do with me than any other non-admin RM closers. Please read and consider what MsBatFish had to say, above. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
To me, given the "nearly unanimous" language, it feels like a prod: if there's any objection, just let the normal process run its course. Like Jenks said, it's nice to avoid arguing over whether the revert of the close was personal or based on sound rationale, or how sound the rationale was, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"To me, given the "nearly unanimous" language, it feels like a prod:" I'm sorry, I'm not following. What is the "it" that feels like a prod? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I mean that it seems to me that the reasons why you can't reinstate a prod are similar to the reasons why you can't reinstate a NAC. Now, if we think it's ok for non-admins to close contentious requests, then this reasoning wouldn't hold. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Luckily I found WP:PROD and WP:NAC so I could finally make sense of what you're saying. Aren't there technical reasons that keep non-admins from reinstating PRODs and NACs? I'm not very familiar with that aspect of WP machinations. In any case, the general principle here is that any objection to anything anyone ever does should be specific to the action taken, not to who did it.

For example, say someone, John D, is restricted from editing, I don't know, articles about clouds because of a history of edit wars on such articles, and, one day he makes a completely uncontroversial edit on such a page (a revert of an obvious vandal, or a spelling or a grammar correction, maybe even an insertion of properly cited material) - something for which nobody would object if a non-restricted editor made that change. I contend that such an edit should not be a violation for him. Now, if he inserts dubiously supported material that would be merely reverted if someone other than John D make the edit, that would be grounds for whatever consequences there are for John D violating the restriction (a block or whatever). So the grounds for that would be not merely that John D edited against the restriction, but he edited in an objectionable way against the restriction.

Similarly, if a non-admin closes a discussion, even a controversial one, in a manner that would not be challenged if it had been an admin who closed it in the exactly same manner, I don't see the point of objecting. Remember, in a given case a proposal itself might be controversial, but closing it as non-consensus is probably not controversial at all. Now, if the non-admin takes a controversial position, that's a different, objectionable, matter. See the difference? So it should always come down to whether there is a real bonafide objection to the non-admin action or not. If there is, then state what the objection is. If there isn't, then don't object!. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are directing this at me because it does not appear to be a reply to anything I said, but since your indentation indicates that you were I'll just reiterate: I am only saying that such a requirement would be pretty silly if we still have the prohibition against NACs of controversial moves. ie, change the "Where there is no contentious debate among participants" clause before adding this. Having them both is inconsistent and weird. That is all I'm saying. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The bit about non-admins having to restrict themselves to "near-unanimous" closures should never have been added to the closing instructions in the first place, imho. Anyone who can reasonably judge consensus should be welcome to close discussions. Jafeluv (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That sure seems more in line with the idea that admins are just users with special tools. I'm all for removing most of that language - the stuff necessitated by technical limitations should stay in, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I also don't know why that text was added - User:JPG-GR effectively ran WP:RM long before he got the bit. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Waaay too many people would just count heads, judging consensus requires more than headcounting, it requires going over the opinions attached to the "!votes". Seeing a field of "support" or "oppose" without opinions attached could be quite swaying, but this occurs sometimes with something canvassed on Facebook or by Stephen Colbert. A proper policy based opinion can counterbalance much of that. And ofcourse, alot of users just ignore anything written by an IP editor (such as myself), which also is not according to policy, regardless of the quality of the opinion given. Some even ignore registered users who agree with IP editors. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What about adding something more along the lines of "When reverting a close it is strongly encouraged that a reason for the revert be stated in the edit summary. Solely stating fact that the close was made by a non-admin is not an adequate explanation to many users. Please make an effort to explain your revert, for example that you disagree with the closer's reading of the discussion." Perhaps something like that might help people not to feel that the proposed addition is implying that non-admins now have carte-blanche permission to close any RMs they want? -MsBatfish (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Example

Okay. So on December 9th I closed the List of books by Jacob Neusner → Jacob Neusner bibliography RM discussion with this comment: "The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. " . Noetica (talk · contribs) reverted this close for apparently no reason at all except that I am not an admin. His edit summary said, "Undid non-admin closure of an RM; please wait for an admin like everyone else". No idea why he thought I was waiting as if I care about the outcome here.

Anyway, I closed again, with more of an explanation: "The result of the move request was: Not moved because there is no consensus to move among those participating, and WP:PRECISION favors the current title. ", and Dicklyon (do these guys work as a team?) reverted that with edit summary: "Given the dispute, wait for an admin; a relisting may be in order." Did these people not read the discussion? Clearly there was no consensus and it was going no where.

The next day, Dec 10, there was one more !vote comment added, in opposition.

Then, after five more days of inactivity, admin Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) finally closed it with comment: "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 25 days. ". Wow. Good thing we waited for that sound judgment.

Now how was Misplaced Pages improved by delaying this close? Since there apparently wasn't actual disagreement with my "no consensus" reading, wouldn't it have been better for WP to keep it closed so that Anthony wouldn't have had to take the time to read the discussion and come up with the same obvious conclusion, so he could use that time for something else? Why the objection to allowing non-admins to help out in cases like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The rules are clear and straightforward. Not just any editor can decide whether such a discussion has come to a satisfactory conclusion. What for example is to stop an anon IP, or someone with a COI or with a skewed view of policy closing such discussions? There could be an additional bit, such as a 'RM close' bit, given only to trusted editors. But why re-invent the wheel when the admin bit already serves this purpose? Allowing just any editor to close discussions as they see fit (by e.g. saying they should not be reverted for doing so) is a recipe for far more drama and disruption than there is now.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 01:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I note you did not answer my question. Non-admins have always been allowed to close discussions - there is nothing new here, and I know of no evidence indicating that NACs, at least at RMs, are a significant problem. Many RM discussions are regularly closed by non-admins, even contentious ones.

But the point here is that if a non-admin does close a discussion, why revert it if it's a reasonable close? And if it's not a reasonable close, why not encourage the reverter to explain what's unreasonable about the close? That's all I'm asking for... is that really too much?

Rejecting and reverting a close on no grounds other than it was closed by a non-admin does not improve the encyclopedia. It's disruptive and time wasting, as is exemplified here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"What for example is to stop an anon IP, or someone with a COI or with a skewed view of policy closing such discussions?". By the way, the answer to this question is... nothing. We have no way to stop a person like that from closing an RM discussion. Our only recourse remains... revert. But even if the close is made by an anon IP or someone with a COI, I wouldn't revert it unless I found the decision to be problematic, and I would explain what that problem was (most likely a misreading of consensus or lack thereof). I don't think it's helpful to the encyclopedia to revert a close simply because it was an anon IP that did it. If it's a reasonable close, leave well enough alone. If it ain't broke... --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The admin bit is not meant as an indication of being able to judge consensus, and not having the admin bit is certainly not an indication of the opposite. I was closing discussions long before I became an admin, and this page has at times been practically run by non-admins. If a user makes a bad closure, you can ask for uninvolved review and give your reasoning why you think the discussion was closed wrongly. No reason to treat people differently based on whether or not they have passed RFA here, when for the most part no actual admin tools even need to be used (apart from uncontroversial G6 deletions that can be handled with {{db-move}} without problems). Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If an admin can't judge consensus, should they even be an admin? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Probably not, but there's no way to remove someone's admin bit unless they engage in some serious abuse of their tools. Meanwhile there are plenty of trustworthy non-admins who are perfectly capable of judging consensus and they should be allowed and welcomed to do so. We have enough admin backlogs without adding another "admin-only" area where admin tools are for the most part not even required. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A problematic move

An editor moved Thai basil to Asian basil because "Asian is more neutral". The vast majority of references to this plant call it Thai basil (1,330,000 ghits as compared to 71,000 for Asian basil). WP:Bold aside, this was not an appropriate move. What's the appropriate action at this point? Waitak (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears this article had a stable title of Thai basil since its creation in 2005. Ask an admin to revert the move and then ask the editor who made the unilateral move to run his suggested move to Asian basil through the RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've lodged it at the help desk. We'll see what happens. Waitak (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 Done (and it not require being an admin) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the tab located at the top of any page to perform most moves (see Misplaced Pages:Moving a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this." As far as I know, autoconfirmed users have not been able to do this since April of this year. Can this be changed (either the article or the policy)? Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any change in April and I've moved pages recently. Of course, it can't be done if another article already exists at the title you plan to move to, or if the page is move-protected, but otherwise you should be able to move any page. Station1 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, autoconfirmed users still have the move userright, so they should be able to rename pages just fine except in the above-mentioned cases. Jafeluv (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves script

With assistance from PiRSquared17, I recently modified an existing RfD script so that it could close requested moves. How it works:

  • This script adds a "close" button to p-cactions (the area that the edit button is located) when viewing the talk page in edit view.
  • When clicked, the script prompts the user for the discussion result (moved, not moved, no consensus).
  • After the user enters the result, the script prompts for (optional) closure rationale.
  • The script then removes {{Requested move/dated}} and replaces it with {{RMT|<result> <rationale>.}}
  • The script then adds {{RMB}} to the bottom of the page (or section, if using section editing).
If there are sections below the requested move, it will add {{RMB}} below those.
However, if it is just editing one section, it will just add the template to the bottom of that particular section.
  • The script then saves the page.

Currently, the script just assists in closing discussions. It does not perform the move. I have a very limited knowledge in javascript and implementing such a feature is beyond me. The script can be found here. Alpha_Quadrant 17:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't RMT and RMB be renamed to RMtop and RMbottom? Particularly, RMB (Renminbi) is the common name for the PRChinese currency. One might expect {{RMB}} to point to Template:Chinese currency and coinage. -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
RMB redirects to RM bottom. Alpha_Quadrant 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns over "proper nouns" (at RMs especially): changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

Noetica 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice on etiquette after administrator's move

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask. If an administrator undertakes a controversial move precipitously in the middle of an RM discussion before consensus is reached, and several editors (non-administrators) want to move it back to its stable, long-established name, would submitting a new "Request to move" only hours after the administrator's move be considered wp:pointy with deleterious consequences for the editors involved? Or would it be an admissable step to resume discussion on what is still an unresolved issue? Unfortunately, this has to be addressed immediately, since many other long-standing article titles depend on this and are being move-warred as a consequence of that administrator's decision on this page. Walrasiad (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, ask the closer—either on the closer's talk page or on the article talk and leave a note on the closer's page, the closer is not necessarily watching the article—and ask to revert the close if discussion was ongoing. Be sure and be polite, since confrontational notes like "There was no consensus! For crying out loud!" engender a combative response, which is obviously not what you want, it would be quite foolish to use language like that, I hope we can all agree. If the closer is recalcitrant, then an RFC is probably the best way forward, although sometimes a new RM is successful—see here. I *think* those are the best ways to "appeal" an RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Too late, ErikHaugen. --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Alas, in the heat of the surprise, I was less than courteous. Thanks for the advice. I'll make one more appeal to the closer, before moving on to the next step. Walrasiad (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

João V of Portugal

Would somebody please move that article back to John V of Portugal? I'm asking here, because the Bot keeps deleting my request. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You know quite well that this is controversial, so you need to file a proper WP:RM request. Could you please elaborate on the alleged bot deletions? I don't see any such requests in your contribution list. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume GoodDay is referring to edits like this. Please note, GoodDay, that this is not the correct way to list RMs and the bot will continue to remove it. The correct way is to start a new section at the article's talk page and use {{subst:requested move|NewName}}. Full explanation is at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:MOSTM apply to ALL phrases that happen to be trademarks, in ALL uses?

That question is put here. I draw it to editors' attention as relevant in a few recent requested moves (RMs), and potentially in many more to come.

Noetica 06:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a bit of direction...

Hi all,

So I've ended up here from Misplaced Pages:Help_desk/Archives/2011_December_26#Help_with_disambig and I'm looking for some help - so AAC redirects to Advanced_Audio_Coding, and I think it would be an improvement for AAC to redirect to the disambig page AAC_(disambiguation) - I understand there is a process for this, but I'm not sure which post's talk page I would add the message to... also - is this something I can do boldy? or is there a particular process to follow? Failedwizard (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is something you can do boldly, if you think it won't be too uncontroversial. (Note: I suspect some editors will disagree with you; I have no opinion on the matter.) There isn't actually a "standard process" for this sort of discussion, beyond the normal bold, revert, discuss cycle, since it doesn't involve a page move, just an alternate redirection. If it does prove controversial, the correct place for the discussion would be on Talk:AAC as to what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of AAC is. Notes would be placed at Talk:Advanced Audio Coding and Talk:AAC (disambiguation) referring people to that discussion. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thank you very much for you help - I'll give it a bold go :) Failedwizard (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Foo should never redirect to Foo (disambiguation). Per the guideline WP:DABNAME, if there is no primary topic for AAC, the disambiguation page should be located at AAC. So if you think that Advanced Audio Coding is not the primary topic, you should create a move discussion to move AAC (disambiguation) to AAC. (Incidentally, two other things that should be done are to remove the redirect hatnote from Advanced Audio Coding and to change the aac redirect accordingly, unless Advanced Audio Coding is still the primary topic for aac but not AAC.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
See also WP:MALPLACED, where that alternate redirection would end up (and probably be reverted with pointers to WP:RM). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Okaaay... right. Thank you both for your comments - and also for not doing a straight revert :) I'll open a requested move discussion now (quite new to this aspect for[REDACTED] so your gentle touch is greatly appreciated, thank you both) - would it be sensible to remove the hatnote from Advanced Audio Coding after the requested move discussion has been completed? Failedwizard (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Once the hatnote is no longer telling the truth, it should be axed. Sorry for the gentle touch; too many other heated discussions going on to spread the rancor here. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion opened :) This is, so far, quite a pleasant board to hang around in...

Contested technical requests

I added a line to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical to clarify what editors should do if their "technical" request is contested by another editor. If anyone thinks different wording, or a different method, would be better, feel free to change it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Displacing edit histories

Recently, an editor asked to displace existing edit history of a page, by moving a user sandbox into its space, as an uncontested technical move. This seems almost the same as a deletion of the article followed by a creation anew, like what is done with copyright violations. Should these really be considered as technical uncontroversial moves? It certainly makes it hard to apply WP:BRD to revert back to the old article, since it no longer appears in the edit history of the page, and makes pages look new, when they've existed for years. I do not believe this is in the spirit of WP:EDIT to use requested moves in this manner. It certainly doesn't match what Help:Edit considers how a major edit is to be done. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are concerned about. Any move that takes place using the Move this page function will preserve the edit history of the page being moved. It doesn't matter where the page is moved from or to. On the other hand, Cut and Paste moves do not. If the target page already exists, then there is a possibility that a History merge is required. Are you talking about a Cut and Paste move? A specific example would be useful. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Canadian comics was moved to Canadian comics/version 1, and a new article (from a user sandbox) was moved into its place. This makes the old version of the page disjoint with the new version, thus being unable to see previous versions of the page in its page history. (I've requested a splice at WP:SPLICE so that the old article shows up in the edit history, since it was not deleted for cause) -- the original article was created in 2006, the new one in 2012, so six years of user contributions have disappeared. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who requested the move, so I'll give the specific example. I requested to have User:Curly Turkey/Canadian comics moved to Canadian comics as an uncontested move. Anthony Appleyard did the move for me, and moved the original page (and its history) to Canadian comics/version 1. Since he had done this, I just assumed that's the way these things are done. Now I want to replace the content of Quebec comics with User:Curly Turkey/Quebec comics, so I've made a request in the same manner as for Canadian comics. I'm not pushing for anything, I just thought this is how it was done.
I placed it under uncontested moves since both original pages were thin, messy and devoid of references, and were full up with long lists of redlinks (take a look). I would be shocked if anyone contested the new content (in relation to the old, I mean). But if this wasn't the right procedure, I just want to know what is, and why what Anthony Appleyard did was the wrong thing. CüRlyTüRkeyContribs 13:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Curly FWIW - Here's my advice. Since the content coming from your user space has only one editor, you, instead of using the Move function, just edit the target article with the new content. Do that on a section by section basis and you won't be accused of a cut and paste move that is destroying an edit history. The history of your edits in your user space aren't that relevant, unless you are moving a new article into the mainspace. Your userspace article gets deleted in the end anyway. A lot of us write our articles in WORD and in one fell swope, create a new article in the mainspace or replace major chunks of existing articles. No one cares about how many edits I made in word or how long it set around while I was working on it. Your updated articles look good. just edit the target article with the new content --Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, I don't understand why Anthony would have performed such a move. Sometimes as a result of a deletion discussion, a user may request that the page be moved to their user space rather than simply deleting the article entirely. The use may then continue to edit and improve the article and and some point request that it be moved back into article space. But that doesn't appear to be the situation here. It appears you want to supplant an article and it's edit history with your own. It doesn't seem right to essentially lose the original edit history by moving it off to an obscure sub page. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, then I'll just replace the contents. The guidelines don't really make this clear. I was under the impression the edit history needed to be moved. CüRlyTüRkeyContribs 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As the WP:SPLICE request was rejected, Canadian Comics still needs to be fixed. The edit history of the existing article is in an obscure subpage. IMHO, it should be restored to the primary position, and Curly should just add his version on top of the existing one. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can the procedures be clarified to rule out this kind of move as being uncontroversial? I wonder how many obscure subpages are floating out there because of requests similar to the one that occurred at Canadian comics. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Speakers' Corner, Singapore/version 1 and Speakers' Corner, Singapore -- in 2010 a new article displaced an old article (created in 2006) -- but there's almost nothing overlapping ... (there wouldn't be any overlap, except that the sandboxed version was created and not edited for months) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to this situation, I have amended the instructions, hopefully uncontroversially, to state that if an article (even a bad one) exists at the target title, a move should be treated as controversial. I don't know if something should be added to specifically address what happened here, i.e. if you want to replace a bad article with one that you've worked on in your userspace, and you're the only editor of the userspace version. Canadian comics still needs to be fixed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Through the gracious actions of Curly, the new version of the article has been integrated into the page "version 1", so I've requested that "version 1" be returned to the primary position, so the complete article history will once more appear with the article. The current version that displaced the old history would be returned to a sandbox. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Displacing edit histories: part 2

  • A history merge is possible, though a little messy and I'm not sure there is much value. The main value to this discussion I think is in avoiding similar situations in the future. But as to the merge, there were no substantive edits to Canadian comics/version 1 after 10:24, 3 January 2012‎. The earliest edit at Canadian comics was 10:21, 3 January 2012‎ and there were only two other edits timestamped earlier than 10:24, 3 January 2012‎. So apart from those first three edits at Canadian comics there is no substantive overlapping history. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is relevant, or helpful, but almost none of the original article ended up in the new article. What did was edits that I had made myself, the most significant being the "Further reading" section. Nothing was copy & pasted from the original article aside from non-text portions (like the categories, navboxes, infobox) except for the "Further reading" section. The reason I edited it in my sandbox in the first place, rather than just adding things on top of the original article, was that I found it unsalvageable, and that starting from scratch would be much easier than trying to fix what was there. CüRlyTüRkeyContribs 13:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And that is perfectly fine, but it's no reason to displace the edit history of the original article. I'd suggest that once your "private" version reaches a point that you are satisfied with releasing into the wild, you can copy and paste over the original with a summary indicating that it is essentially a complete rewrite. If you want to keep the edit history of your private version around, you could also link to that in your edit summary. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "you can copy and paste over the original": That is, make a cut-and-paste; but cut-and-pastes are a Bad Thing. Better put a history note in its talk page saying that the article has been moved aside and replaced by a new rewrite. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Generally, cut-and-pastes are a Bad Thing, because they do not show attribution for GFDL or other licensing purposes. I think there can be an exception, though, for cut-and-paste edits from Userspace to Mainspace where there has been only one editor in Userspace. As mentioned, this is because there is no difference between the one editor working on an article off-line and then overwriting an existing article, making major changes to an article directly in one or more edits, or working in a sandbox or their own Userspace and then overwriting the article. It wouldn't apply if more than one editor has made any substantial contribution, even in Userspace, because then the attribution history is still necessary. Station1 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Station1. Having once had what I had writen for WP threatened with removal as a potential copy-vio, I understand why copy and paste editing is disapproved of. I would suggest placing a note on the talk page explianing the source, whether in a sandbox or a text file on your own computer, and that it is not copied from a copyright source, and then pasting your new text over the poorer older one, probably section by section unless your new version has a radically different structure. For the future, it is better to edit your improvements into the article by stages. If this is likely to take some time, consider puttign an {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag on the article to discourage others from editing while your are in the midst of doing so. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason why I did want to replace it in one swoop was that (a) it did have an entirely different structure, and (b) it wold take some time to work up, during which time the article would have been weaker than the original. I built it up to the point where it wasn't finished, but was clearly more substantial than the original, before having the original replaced. I thought it would've been best to have left the content that was there up until my replacement was worthy of replacing the original.
What I think is most important is to have guidelines that are clear and explicit enough to deal with these situations, whatever the outcome of this discussion is. It doesn't do anyone any good if the only way to find out how to do it is to scour archived talk pages. CüRlyTüRkeyContribs 03:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. The issue that there is really no reason to displace the edit history of the original. So long as you are the only editor of the new version created in your user space, there is no problem with copying a pasting the new version over the old (with an appropriate edit summary, of course). older ≠ wiser 03:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 mean 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 Misplaced Pages, we have a policy page on the phenomenon: WP:Tendentious editing. Much of that policy page’s real estate is dedicated to describing the hallmarks of it. Moreover the policy page 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)
Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves Add topic