Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:


Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests[edit]

The previous section served a reminder to me that the {{RMassist}} changes which I boldly but quietly implemented in May 2014 have yet to be formally announced here, or integrated into the process instructions (I have considered this to be in "beta". As a relative latecomer to the project, I feel at this point the need to further research the history of this process, to ensure that there is a consensus for any changes and that no "unconstitutional" changes are made.

First stepping back to the origins of the current process as we know it.

In February 2005 a STRAW POLL was conducted which led to discussions taking place the talk page of the article to be moved, and summarized with links to the discussions from WP:RM. The discussions and implementation focused on (potentially) controversial requests, and made no provision for handling technical requests. Just prior to that poll an editor made an astute observation that I feel is still applicable today: "many moves are suggested here without first making any attempt at discussing them on an article's talk page. This seems (again, contrary to instructions) more prevalent for moves which the suggester thinks might be somewhat controversial, or at least unpopular with those editing the page." My sense is that there are some editors who, realizing that there is no risk in making a technical request, take a chance on getting their request quietly honored by an admin, knowing that the worst that could happen is their request being converted for discussion. Hence, we see more "technical requests" and conversions than we would if editors were more conservative in their assessments of potential controversy regarding their moves. Here is a snapshot of the instructions on 24 September 2005, when someone asked How are noncontroversial moves made?, the answer was "using the [Move] tab at the top of every page" and it was suggested to add a link (risking "instruction creep") to HELP:MOVE. This was four years before the bot came on the scene, so manual updating of WP:RM went on for some time before automation was implemented. Now I'll look for the debut of the concept of "technical requests". I'll be back in a while. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Noncontroversial proposals section made its entrance on 6 October 2006, with the splitting of Current proposals into Noncontroversial proposals' and Other proposals. Half an hour later, the first noncontroversial proposal was made. There was a relatively brief discussion prior to implementation, in contrast to the earlier straw poll, with PBS, who played a key role in the straw poll, and in the 2009 automation of requested moves, objecting. This new process deprecated and more broadly replaced an earlier process which used {{Capitalmove}} for technical moves restricted to capitalization changes only. Template:WP:RM2, the predecessor of {{RMassist}} was created 6 October 2006 to facilitate the noncontroversial proposals process. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On 23 February 2007, a new section Incomplete and disputed proposals was added (related discussion) "in an attempt to solve the persistent problem of 1) orphaned requests and 2) contested "uncontroversial" proposals."

If a requested move is incomplete (not all steps of the procedure are followed), or if anyone objects to an "uncontroversial" proposal, it should be listed here until the proposer or anyone else completes it. After the completion, plese move the entry to the top of "other proposals" section. Please place newly moved requests to the top of this list, and either sign (~~~~) or just put the timestamp (~~~~~) at the end. Proposals that remain here longer than 5 days are subject to removal.

Note that this boldly inserted instruction said anyone else could complete the request. By the end of the month, this new section had already attracted a crowd. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

These instructions survived in copy-edited form until this 27 May 2007 edit removed them (whether the removal was intentional is anyone's guess). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

{{RMcontested}} was created by Stemonitis on 24 June 2007‎ (rationale here: "The shifting of discussion about contested moves to the relevant talk pages seems to be working well. However, it can be confusing, and people are sometimes tempted to vote even though the request is unlikely to go through. In a attempt to clarify, I have tried to come up with a standardised text which can be put on talk pages which explains the procedure a bit more. When moving comments contesting a supposedly uncontroversial request to the article's talk page, consider using {{subst:WP:RMC}}, followed by the text copied from WP:RM. It's just a few sentences I knocked off quickly, so if anyone thinks the wording should be altered, I'm open to suggestions.")

  • A related question about procedure from December 2007
  • Searching for uses of this template, I find about 50 uses (48 matches on "section Contested move request"), all seem to be in the 2007–08 timeframe – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This template never seems to have been widely advertised, and its limited usage was mostly by the template creator and a few others.

Instructions returned to the Incomplete and contested proposals section with this 30 December 2007 edit:

Please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

The horse was already out of the barn. A substantial discussion forum had formed as an alternative to discussions on article talk pages. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This 8 January 2008 edit allowed for exceptions:

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

A February 2008 discussion: Incomplete and contested section - how can we be most efficient?

This 5 March 2008 edit set a time limit for items remaining in the "contested requests" section: "Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed." Later this was increased from five to seven days.

This 3 June 2009 edit changed the section title from Incomplete and contested proposals to Contested uncontroversial proposals because "malformed requests (incomplete) no longer appear in this section".
And this 4 June 2009 edit changed it to Contested requests because "if it's contested, it's not uncontroversial".

This 29 November 2009 edit changed the text from:

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support a contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to add the proposed page move to the "Other proposals" section below by substituting the {{move}} template on the article's talk page. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.

to:

This is the place for a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.

The edit summary explanation was "Template needs only to be placed once". Anyone's guess which template they meant needed only to be placed once – {{RMassist}} or {{move}}?
This instruction remained until it was removed in April 2010, as I previously noted in #Regarding #1 above. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

re Wbm1058. I don't know where this leads to, but it is interesting reading. Some notes: in the top post, you write take a chance on getting their request quietly honored by an admin. That reads like blaming the editor for "trying" to get a move "silently" done. If this opinion has consequences, I'd like to visit it once more (I don't like the non-AGF aspect of it). Anyway, those days are gone. Next. I understand there were "incomplete" move requests. Those do not longer exist AFAIK. Must have been a horror to work with indeed. Next. Indeed it leads to "controversial", "non-controversial", "techical" move statuses, which I recognise as the current descriptions. I do not see a conclusion or consequence from all this, but I'll follow this thread. In general, I am a bit worried that the long history research may convince you to re-interpret the current status of this WP:RM page. So far, I don't think that is needed. Since this thread does not conclude or propose anything, I guess you may skip responding. I see no need to spend much timne on fleshing out views now. Just noting. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will assume good faith. If an editor proposes a technical move Israel to Palestine, or Palestine to Israel, I will assume that they honestly believe this to be an uncontroversial request. Maybe there is a place where a line can be drawn between good-faith requests and non-good-faith requests, but different editors will have different opinions on where to draw that line. It's probably not constructive to even discuss this.
I appreciate that you found this interesting reading. Where this leads to:
1) I have proposed Template:RMcontested for deletion. I assume that you'll not have a problem with this, since the usage of this template, as I documented above, was accompanied by copying of user requests and comments from the central discussion page to the talk page of the page proposed for moving. I understand you are opposed to such copying of user comments.
2) I have added a new "discuss" parameter to {{RMassist}}. This is a response to your concerns. Check it out. Setting discuss=no will suppress the link for converting technical requests to controversial requests. I'm confident that administrators will honor the wishes of users who set this parameter to "no".
So there is some history of instructions to simply remove contested requests after five or seven days, rather than convert them to discussions on the associated talk page. This is a valid, albeit I believe, a minority POV at this time. I don't think we need to remove the nifty semi-automated conversion mechanism I implemented. The question is whether conversions should be opt-out or opt-in by default, and I'm preparing to have a request for comments to settle that issue. In other words, I take the solution that you would prefer to be one which sets discuss=no by default, and require editors to explicitly opt-in to conversion if their requests are contested, by setting discuss=yes as part of their requests. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages failing to move with articles[edit]

As a frequent closer of RMs, there is the odd occasion on which I fail to spot that the talk page hasn't also moved (as the destination needs deleting) and this is brought to my attention at a later date. Am I missing something, or is there no alert that appears when a page moves but it's talk page doesn't? If not, can one be introduced, or another alert and tick box on the admin move page that allows you to also delete the talk page target? Cheers, Number 57 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • There is such a warning, when trying to move a page with its talkpage, but the talkpage cannot be moved because the target already exists. See here. Any admin making a move should have a responsibility to perform the cleanup tasks mentioned on the post-move page (images, sort key, redirects, talk page). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, I never noticed that, thanks. Of course, I'm aware it's my responsibility, but as I said, occasionally I don't spot that it hasn't moved. Number 57 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries! I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive. I agree with you that the warning could be more visible. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I remember making this mistake occasionally, which means that I've probably done it a lot more than occasionally. I agree that making the warning bigger and more visible would be quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Move from Userspace[edit]

Please help with non listing request for multiple page moves[edit]

Hi, I made a request to move a large number of pages at Template talk:Largest cities of Acre#Requested move 1 March 2015. However the listing has not appeared on the RM project page although a note has been added to talk pages of other pages requested to be moved. Is there a way for the request to be listed on the project page as normal? Thanks. I'll also add the template:

{{help me}}

GregKaye 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's appearing on the RM page in the section "Time could not be ascertained". I'll see if I can fix it. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my. A request to move 184 pages. I bumped the bot's limit on multiple move requests from 150 to 200. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An all time largest page move?[edit]

Wbm1058 Thanks for the help here. Your comment got me wondering whether there was a way to check past changes in the bot settings and whether you could guide me as to how to take a look. I'd be interested to see if moves of larger size than 150 pages have previously been made. thanks again. GregKaye 10:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, this has set the new record for the all time largest page move. Actually you may have broken your own record. A previous new record was set at Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician) last October, that was for 111 pages. You may recall the discussion on that. I maintain a record of the bot's source code here, so you can check the edit history of that. Not all bot operators make their code public, but as this bot has become somewhat mission-critical I feel that's the right thing to do. What's online is just a copy of what's running live on my computer, so only I can make live updates. The technical limit was stuck at 30 pages per request before the conversion to use module:requested move. I don't know what the appropriate limit on moves per request should be; that's up to editors to decide by consensus. I should fix the bot's code to clearly report the issue though, as reporting it as a "Time could not be ascertained" error obscures the real issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 excellent, a personal and English Wikipedia best Face-smile.svg, and hopefully this request may even go through and have been remotely worthwhile. The next big target may be ".. (mythology)" to ".. (deity)" but I don't think this will be to the same magnitude. GregKaye 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Laurie[edit]

Hello. I would like to move User:Zigzig20s/Bill Laurie, a referenced article about an accomplished basketball player and business executive, to Bill Laurie, which had a redirect to his wife's page. I tried to remove the redirect and then move my userpage to his name, but it won't let me. Can you please fix this and help me move/create the page? Or should I just copy and paste it and delete my userpage? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hootsuite[edit]

For the worse, I renamed the page HootSuite to Hootsuite Media. The goal was to change to "Hootsuite" (proper title case). The current name is completely inappropriate but I cannot revert the change nor proceed to update to the desired title. Help from an admin requested. Toby Sullivan (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been partially fixed. If anyone can fix the casing of the page title, that would still be appreciated. Toby Sullivan (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to revert a whole bunch of undiscussed moves[edit]

The reason I'm not using the regular space to request this is because there are hundreds of undiscussed moves conducted over the last two days and entering a separate entry for each in that field would be quite tedious indeed. The list of moves to be reverted can be seen here: [1]. Between March 15 and 16, the same editor made hundreds of controversial mythology-related moves in absence of any RMs. Would someone mind reverting them all? Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion § Disambiguations of divinities, which was used as justification for the moves in the edit summaries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
But the issue is not a religious issue, so Wikiproject Religion can't provide consensus. Certainly not more than the animal-related Wikiprojects could over all those interminable animal breed moves that kept popping up last year. Whenever the editor has brought the subject up in a venue that isn't devoted to religion issues, the response had been considerably more negative (Talk:Gaia (mythology)#Requested move 16 March 2015, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: ancient religions and the myth of NPOV), and by considerably, I mean that every single response so far has been against such proposals. The moves are clearly not uncontroversial, and a "consensus" at Wikiproject Religion is no more valid than a theoretical "consensus" at Wikiproject Astronomy that various astronomical objects should be primary topic over the mythological figures they're named after would be. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, your response to this would be appreciated. I'm unclear on why you use that RfC for justification, given that it hasn't been closed yet. Note that I haven't read it all. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you mean my reference to the RfC, it was to show that the "consensus" used as justification isn't going over anywhere that isn't Wikiproject Religion, which, for an issue that isn't a religious issue, is rather a problem. The Gaia RM is still open as well. That the respondents at both places so far are opposing show that the issue is controversial. That the conversations being open mean that some editors that agree with GregKaye might show up doesn't change that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Prior to making the moves I also edited Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves with inclusion of a link to: Wikipedia:Request multiple page moves, extended blank which I had intended to use. Instead, after raising an RfC, I decided to go ahead with the moves manually also leaving a trail of the moves in case any needed to be undone.
However, in most if not all cases I think that the moves are constructive and I have received several thanks for them. GregKaye 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was only opened on two days ago - moving that many pages so quickly was rather hasty, IMO. A week, minimum, would have been a more appropriate period to wait. Given that these moves have been challenged here and elsewhere, it would be best to reverse them for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The RFC was opened a month ago. [2] Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I only saw the edited time stamp on the initial post. You are correct. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"when the direction of the RfC seemed clear" does not convince me. Afterwards claiming correctness because "I think that the moves are constructive and I have received several thanks for them" is lame. Why not wait for the discussion, an RFC no less, to finish? I find this preemptive one-sided decision & action a disrespect for the wiki consensus paradigma. No experienced editor should engage in that. DePiep (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye:, in regards to the idea of making unilateral article moves based off of a discussion you yourself opened based on your personal determination of how it was going, I cannot help but be reminded of a recent RM about the goddess Pomona (here, for people unfamiliar) and your rather WP:BITEy response to a new editor who made one unilateral article move (rather than hundreds) based off of a discussion they themselves opened based on their personal determination of how it was going: [3]. I think you would do well to read it again and reflect on it and its potential applicability, particularly the last two sentences you wrote to them. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
DePiep In the RfC, which opened on 16th Feb never gave any suggestion that of an acceptance of a (mythology) disambiguation for items in the categories for gods of mainly ancient religions. This was a unanimous view.
Egsan Bacon I take your point about bite but please also note that the RM that you refer to was both opened and closed by the same editor who you in your link present as a newcomer and I was not the editor to raise issue following the close. The fact is that there is a lack of NPOV in regard to the way present day religions an past time myths are respectively presented. I honestly did not expect Wikipedia to stand for and endorse this. GregKaye 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye:, with respect, while you may take my point about bite, you appear to have missed my larger point entirely. Firstly, I did not "present" Some Gadget Geek as a newcomer, they are a newcomer. First edit, Nov 9, 2014, 12:16 AM. Total edits through February (when this took place), 367. By anyone's standards, that is a newcomer. I am unsure why you would choose to phrase your mentioning of it in a way that implies I was misjudging an editor's status. And no, you were not the first editor to raise the issue. But you were the first editor - the only editor - to swear at them. No one else asked them WTF were you thinking???? No one else referred to their actions as your policy abusive fuck up?? That was all you.
But the larger issue, the main issue, the reason I brought it up at all, appears to have escaped you judging by your response. Perhaps, in your pursuit of WP:GREATWRONGS to right, you have decided it is unimportant, that because you are doing it for a good cause, it is alright. Perhaps you simply do not see the connection. I will endeavor to make my point very clear. A couple of weeks ago, another editor did something that you considered at the time a policy abusive fuck up. They moved a page based on a discussion they started themselves. You took great umbrage when this happened. You yelled at them. You used profanity. You were uncivil. You were bitey. Now, you have done the exact same thing, except you have done it several hundred times in just a few hours. (No, you did not formally close the discussion you started, but the fact that you cited the discussion several hundred times makes it clear that you were declaring the discussion was closed and a consensus existed makes pointing out that you did not formally close your discussion like Some Gadget Geek did theirs a distinction without a difference.) This is, to me, an example of what you referred to then as a clear example of disruptive editing. I had hoped you would realize this when I raised the parallel and do the right thing. Now, I am politely asking you to do no more than you so impolitely demanded from someone else (I refer to when you said, after all the swearing, find a way to, yourself, resolve this situation). Revert all your remaining moves yourself. Open up RMs. Do things the proper way. Please. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Egsan Bacon I am in a situation in which I made moves based on contributions to an isolated RfC which, if anything, should have also been addressed to, for instance, the history and geography group as well as to the religion and philosophy group. In the situation as I have taken it the most straightforward route to resolution would be to now present an RM to see if there is editor support to move the articles back to their earlier titles. In the RfC there was and continued to be unanimous support for moves from ".. (mythology)" disambiguations in relation to the god/desses of ancient faiths.

To my shame I had forgotten about the Pomona thread. In my case however I opened an RfC which in no way did I push but canvassed views from editors who I took to be concerned with what I considered to be the most relevant topic: religion. I have presented lists of all the moved articles with the intention of opening routes for moves to be undone if required. However, all the moves were made in good faith. I think that contextual usage even in regard to Pomona supports moves from, for instance, the ".. (mythology)" disambiguations. In scholar we find:

pomona AND deity got "About 1,510 results"
pomona AND mythology got "About 2,330 results"

In regard to the RM related to the, Gaia, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus articles we similarly find:

gaia AND deity got "About 4,830"
gaia AND mythology got "About 7,600 results"
mars AND deity got "About 23,700 results"
mars AND mythology got "About 32,900 results"
jupiter AND deity got "About 24,800 results"
jupiter AND mythology got "About 26,900 results"
uranus AND deity got "About 3,730 results"
uranus AND mythology got "About 4,970 results"

In the RM I said: "Searches in the web in general on one of the figures gave a similar pattern of results. The combined references to similar figures of, for instance, Ancient Greek mythology / Ancient Greek religion as goddesses, gods and deities far outstrips their unfortunately prejudging references of the pertaining to mythology. I honestly thought that this kind of move would be a no brainer."

I appreciate your mention of WP:GREATWRONGS and am more than happy for editors to follow the "your pursuits" link that you provided. However, in relation to actual usage, the wrongs of the current disambiguation extend way beyond the great ones that you mention. GregKaye 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Revert all - such a sweeping set of moves, particularly undoing years of convention for mythology disambigs, should certainly have come through WP:RM. And, respectfully @GregKaye: the "most straightforward route to resolution" is not to "present an RM to see if there is editor support to move the articles back", it is for you to move the articles back and then present the RMs in favour of the moves. The convention per WP:BRD is that consensus has to be shown in order to enact the move, not to move back it back.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert all I agree with Amakuru. Such a massive set of moves as this requires extensive discussion and a broad consensus. I see no such thing. Paul August 11:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert all - As the newcomer who started all of this fuss about moving Pomona to Pomona (mythology) (which under GregKaye's sole discretion has become Pomona (deity), I strongly agree with and thank Egsan Bacon for bringing this concern up. There is insufficient evidence to move such a large number of pages, compared to what I did with just one page. Please and thank you. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert all. No basis for such a backwater discussion to be taken as consensus over such a broad swath of articles. I think I'd be ok with many off the moves from Foo (god) to Foo (deity). But other moves are highly questionable. Many misrepresent demons or other beings as deities. olderwiser 14:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert all. Most of the editors who edit the affected articles had no idea that a move was being considered, since the discussion was limited to a few participants on the talk page of a WikiProject. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you must, revert except from moves from (mythology) to (deity). Everybody seemed to agree that "(mythology)" was inappropriate for a variety of reasons. Q·L·1968 18:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
But that's not so; some of the moves from (mythology) --> (deity) have been reverted, and I've posted on the Wikiproject talk page that the move isn't a good idea. It simply isn't the case that everyone who edits the affected articles were aware of the discussion. --Akhilleus (talk)
As far as I can see, you were arguing that (mythology) was not as problematic as another proposal, viz. imposing a Christian-inspired hierarchy between (god) and (deity). I do agree with that, but that wasn't the move that GregKaye made anyhow. I will agree with you that not everybody was notified in advance of that the move might be effected. I seem to remember there being a template that says, "This page is being considered for being moved in conjunction with moving a whole scad of articles." Does anybody know what template I'm talking about? Q·L·1968 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert all (when sensible) and warn the editor. As described above, the proposal was not fleshed out. Also the discussion would have or could have been different if the other interested Projects were notified. The editor admits that is an omission, but given the large consequences this omission can be considered partial cause of the now disputed conclusion/action. This reversal can be seen as a "WP:DRV" (Deletion Review) outcome.
Then, the editor (GregKaye) was invited here and responded to the issues mentioned (including one by me), in itself a positive action. In the responses here, the editor did not seem to recognise that the process as performed was faulty in the core (in short, and in my words: not a thorough discussion, not a sound conclusion, no consensus). Instead, the editor responded in the lesser side-topics. Also, responses were about discussion content (re-entering arguments, e.g. the list of google hit numbers) as to argue that the conclusion was right -- such a re-discussion is not for this page. User:Egsan Bacon mentioned some new, extra descriptions of talkpage (discussion) behavior by the editor, which were not addressed either (or the notion of '[this was just] an isolated RfC' would refer to that? But what is that?). I add that the quoted examples of dismissive discussion behavior are worrying. All in all the editor does not show any sense of getting to the issue. This could imply that in a next time, the editor might behave the same, including unneeded tough language against other editors and pulling unsound conclusions. For this, the editor should be warned in strong words. Skipping due discussion and consensus seeking is undermining the processes, and might be disruptive. -DePiep (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GregKaye for reverting these moves. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks Greg. Paul August 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed! GregKaye has shown a combination of commendable Wikipedian traits through this process so far: willingness to take initiative, willingness to take criticism, willingness to hold his horses and build consensus, and a clear desire to do the right thing. Q·L·1968 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As the others before me have said, Face-smile.svg Thank you once again GregKaye for your actions and Green tickY resolving this dispute. And, just so you know, I have accepted the apology you posted on my talk page. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Great action, GregKaye. -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So now what happens? Does GregKaye revert all the moves he's made, or just some? Does the RfC keep going, or start over? A. Parrot (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I am guessing it either an oversight, or Greg hasn't had time to get to them all yet, but there is at least one (deity) move left to revert: Makemake (deity). Dragons flight (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, Neti (deity) and Deimos (deity), and possibly others, though Greg does seem to have already reverted nearly all of the prior moves. Dragons flight (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty more moves to go and anti spam measures haven't particularly helped in speeding up the process but I'm working through. There is an existing RfC but perhaps it might be appropriate to set a level three (===..) section heading so as to add a RfC history and geography template to the mix. My impression is that the Wikipedia content is written more from a mythological perspective than from a religious perspective. My contention of systemic bias between present day faiths and faiths labelled dead religions also remains. However this is a bias that is rooted in society so it remains for editors to find an appropriate path/stance to take. GregKaye 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Moves that died in the attempt were Morta (deity) and redirect pages Lima (deity) and Cuba (deity) which both point to the content of articles. It would take admin level clearance to make the moves and editors can decide how important these moves are right now. Appropriately the issues above have been raised before the RfC has been concluded and Morta, a goddess, fits the description of deity. GregKaye 09:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    I just pressed the button to move Morta (deity) back to Morta (mythology), and it worked without problem, so must have just been a temporary glitch. Incidentally there's an outstanding query on the talk page asking if it is the same goddess as Mors (mythology). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion... Mythology... Worldview?[edit]

Thank you GregKaye for restoring the status quo. Please leave it now. There is a clear distinction between religion and mythology. Apuldram (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The related RfC on "Disambiguations of divinities" continues here and contributors to related discussions should have been pinged. Apuldram perhaps you can explain your view of "a clear distinction between religion and mythology" and on your views on the "status quo". GregKaye 12:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Apuldram means that now that you have made these reverts as you were advised to do, all the editors involved here are satisfied and have thanked you for what you did. We now ask that you please leave the pages alone (i.e. do not move them again) and preferably avoid debating any further on whether these topics represent religion or mythology; the distinction is made clear that these all belong to the latter.
Once more, we all appreciate your initiative to follow the consensus of the community Thumbs up, and with that said I suggest that our discussion here be Symbol declined.svg Closed  as the issue in Symbol question.svg Question: has now been Resolved. two cents <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Very nice pretty Data-transfer.svg icons there, Some Gadget Geek, and I am in Yes check.svg agreement with you on the distinction between mythology and religion, and the fact that we don't need wholesale moves, but on the other hand it's not really for you to tell others not to debate the issue if they'd like to. And this isn't a formal RfC or RM request anyway, so it's not really a question of closing it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The discussion can continue, now that others who might have an input are aware of it. I think in many cases GregKaye probably has a point. I don't see a problem with disambiguating figures who are unambiguously deities as deities, but the campaign to eliminate "mythology" as a disambiguator was a little overzealous. There's an overlap between religion and mythology, but there are differences as well. I'll join in the discussion at the religion project once I've had the chance to read it all, and I'd urge anyone else with an interest to do the same. Nicknack009 Revision as of 13:59, 18 March 2015
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> adding to Apuldram's assertion that "There is a clear distinction between religion and mythology" with "the distinction is made clear that these all belong to the latter" does not provide substantiation. The subjects mentioned were divinities within ancient/historic religions. GregKaye 13:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have seen the argument made on one of these discussions that actually there was quite a difference between the ancient religions and some of those practised today. In particular that the process was handled more informally, through story telling, passing on of ancient myths (!) from parent to child, etc. That in contrast to the modern religion, which in many cases includes the ritual of turning up at a specific place at specific times, and being told there by an authority figure with in the organised relgion what to believe, what not to believe, and how to behave. Apologies if that representation offends anyone (and I am a church-goer myself), but if you dig down to fundamentals, I'm thinking that's what a religion is. I am not sure if the ancient religions were of this nature or not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly not what ancient Greek or Roman religion was like. The focus was not "what to believe, what not to believe, and how to behave", and I can't think of a situation where you'd have Christian-style sermonizing. The focus of most cult practice was sacrifice (not necessarily of live animals, but also of liquids, incense, foods, weapons, money, etc.); a sacrifice might be accompanied by banquets, games (including chariot races and the like), theatrical performances, the dedication of monuments, etc. Myths were not really declarations of faith, even if they were embedded in a hymn; in some cases their performance was itself a votive offering. In other cases, the retelling of a story of gods and/or heroes might simply be part of local lore ("how such-and-such a mountain got its name", or whatever); in other cases again, a myth might have a clear political or social function. In addition to ritual and mythology, there were other religious domains, including theology, mysticism, and art (including decorative and functional art (e.g. mosaics or lamps depicting the gods) as well as cult images and simulacra). Mythology doesn't encompass this whole range of experience, though it's certainly a rich and important part of it. Q·L·1968 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@QuartierLatin1968: up above you made the comment that "Everybody seemed to agree that (mythology) was inappropriate for a variety of reasons", but here you're suggesting that the mythology angle is more important when considering these ancient gods and goddesses than a "religious" viewing. i.e. you're supporting the notion that there is a distinction between gods in ancient mythology and gods in modern religions. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Religion and mythological debates can rage on, but that alone is insufficient evidence for moving the whole bunch of articles that led to this lengthy posting on the page. As it seems this debate would grab more attention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, to the extent that we're still talking about "(mythology)", the discussion's still relevant to the move. The only point conceded is that we shouldn't paint with broad strokes, and we should build consensus about these moves before making them happen. Anyway, to Amakuru's point, we need to be clear about what mythology is and what religion is. In a very rough-and-ready definition, mythology consists of narratives about gods and heroes: Táin Bó Cúailgne is a mythological text, the Iliad is a mythological text, Ovid's Metamorphoses is a mythological text. But religion, as such, extends into many other domains besides such narratives. Religion also includes cult practices, iconography, theology, mysticism, monuments, etc., none of which are actually mythology. So the article Telo (mythology) should not be called "Telo (mythology)", because we have exactly zero myths concerning Telo; what we have are votive inscriptions, which are monuments of cult practice. Ancient religion extends beyond the realm of mythology; neither can it be defined as a "faith" or a "belief" the way that, say, the Bahá'í Faith or modern Christianity identify themselves. If those religions want to equate religion with faith, great, but that framework doesn't work for ancient polytheism (or for that matter for Shinto, Chinese folk religion, etc.). Q·L·1968 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Q·L· Sorry to have left the discussion for a while. Personally I do not see a great difference between that nature of say the Sumerian creation myth and the Genesis creation narrative. They have both been foundational to belief and wondered in regard to any point of clarification. It also seems to me that there is no way of knowing for sure how much if any of Homer's Iliad was plagiarised from related religious beliefs and how much of the developing and related religious beliefs was plagiarised from texts like the Iliad. Again I think that the same can be said of the Genesis creation narrative. As far as I can see many such stories perform similar functions in relation to belief with various people and groups investing into them varying levels of faith.
One point that had been raised to me is that articles can take reference to books on mythology. The book on mythology was shown to make a great many references to various "gods" and "deities". These seem to be the common descriptions of personages (such as Zeus) as used in all disciplines. GregKaye 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Making "faith" or "belief" a defining characteristic of ancient religion and assuming that mythology and belief have the same relationship in ancient Sumerian or Greek religion as they do in Judeo-Christian religion is imposing a modern (and basically Christian) worldview on these other cultures. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't think the Iliad was foundational with regard to Greek religious beliefs, though your use of "plagiarised" does rather suggest you're thinking of it as a 'holy book' in the manner of the Bible. NebY (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Akhilleus has it exactly right, I think. Anyway, the Sumerian creation myth doesn't need to be equivalent to the Hebrew creation myth. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but given that Sumerian religion is not the same as Judaism (or Christianity for that matter), I wouldn't particularly expect it to be. Why bring Judaism and Christianity into the discussion of Sumerian religion? Do we really need to judge, to evaluate, Sumerian religion on the basis of its supposed equivalence to Christianity or any other religion? If Christians don't want us to call the Hebrew creation myth a myth, fine, whatever, but the same doesn't hold for every other perfectly good myth that has come down to us. Correct me if I'm wrong, Greg, but it seems as though you're arguing that pre-modern religions should be spoken of on WP with the same respect accorded to Christianity (and other modern religions). And this is true and good. But in so doing, you're in some danger of falling into the trap of saying that pre-modern religions should be spoken of (hence defined) in the same terms as Christianity (and other modern religions). And, for the reasons NebY and Akhilleus mention, that simply won't do. Q·L·1968 18:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── QuartierLatin1968 thanks for the ping:
--Akhilleus what would you say were the defining characteristics of past time and predominantly polytheistic religions? Please note results in Scholar on:

There was belief and faith involved and the beliefs cannot be soley classified as mythology. GregKaye 19:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how those Google Scholar searches support the argument you're trying to use them to make. That there exist some writings that contain the text string "believed that [name]" are in no way evidence that [name] was worshipped. Here are some results that I got from Google Scholar:
"believed that George Washington"
"believed that Henry VIII"
"believed that Cleopatra"
"believed that Socrates"
"believed that Abraham Lincoln"
"believed that Machiavelli"
"believed that Nero"
"believed that Charlemagne"
These even get more hits. This is not a case where raw search results are a useful guide to how to proceed. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NebY I hope that you are not saying that religion did not borrow from tales like the Iliad. A lot of the content here is to say that past time religions were part and parcel of myth but, if the ancient religions did not borrow from contents such as those mentioned, which texts did they borrow from? GregKaye 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

None. When it comes to ancient Roman or Greek religions, texts are cultural products, not religious foundations. NebY (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

QuartierLatin1968 why? because there is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in favour of modern religions.
No I am not, "saying that pre-modern religions should be spoken of (hence defined) in the same terms as Christianity (and other modern religions). Christianity describes its divinity as "God". Islam describes its presentation of the same divinity as "Allah". I am saying that, in the same pattern of content in texts on ancient mythology, ancient religion and various related subjects, Zeus, for instance, should be described as a "Greek god" GregKaye 19:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're claiming that "faith" or "belief" is a central element of ancient Greek religion then you are defining it in the same terms as Christianity. These words denote emotional or mental attitudes towards some body of claims about god(s), the nature of reality, etc. And they usually describe the faith/beliefs of individuals. This concept of religion is only a few centuries old. In contrast, scholars of Greek religion focus on the communal and social aspects of religious practices--that is, what groups of people do, rather than what individuals believe.
I have no problem calling Zeus a god. But look at Ingres' painting Jupiter and Thetis. That's Zeus, in a scene from Book 1 of Homer's Iliad. Is this a religious painting? Or is this painting evidence of the continuing presence of Greek mythology in 19th century Europe? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: (FWIW, Arabic-speaking Christianity also describes its god as Allah.) What I'm saying is that Islam has a shahadah. There is no shahadah in Greek polytheism. Judaism has the first and second commandments. Greek polytheism has no such commandments. Christianity has John 14:6 and similar passages. Greek polytheism makes no such promises. What Greek polytheism does have (along with Roman, Celtic, and Germanic polytheism, among others) is a religious culture in which practical acts of piety count. Deeds matter, not professions of faith. I pour out a libation at your altar, therefore I beg that you (you being whichever god or goddess I'm addressing) remember me in my time of need. As a practical illustration, in the Iliad, Chryses (portrayed as a good and upright priest) prays to Apollo: "Hear me, lord of the silver bow who set your power about Chryse and sacrosanct Cilla, you who are lord in strength over Tenedos; Smintheus, if ever it pleased your heart that I built your temple, if ever it pleased you that I burned all the rich thigh pieces of bulls and goats, then bring to pass this wish I pray for: let your arrows make the Danaans pay for the tears I've shed" (Iliad i.36–42). And so on in countless prayers and exhortations all through ancient literature. Chryses does not say, "O Apollo, about whom I believe such-and-such" or "Apollo, in whom I have faith" or "Apollo, through whom I expect life everlasting". He says, "Apollo, to whom I have sacrificed." It's do ut des; it can't be confined to just "belief". Argue, if you must, that some strong but unarticulated belief may motivate this, but it's through gifts and sacrifice that one cultivates a relationship with the gods and thus concludes what the Romans called pax deorum. Romans, Greeks, Etruscans and so on felt themselves to be pious to the extent that they gave to the gods in the traditional way, not because they believed this or that about the gods.
Greg also says that "There was belief and faith involved and the beliefs cannot be solely classified as mythology", but I think this illustrates a false dichotomy in Greg's thinking. Mythology does not mean "that which one does not believe" or "that which is unworthy of belief"; it simply refers to traditional stories having to do with the supernatural. One might believe a particular myth, or not. One might believe it literally, as people like Plato and Cicero assure us the masses often did, or one might believe it allegorically, as they did. Nor does it matter very much at the moment of performing a sacrifice whether, or how, one believes any or all myths about the deity in question or not; the point is that you're offering cultus to a deity. Now, where Greg is clearly right is that mythology is not the beginning and end of ancient religion, which also extends into art, cult practices, theology, and beyond. Q·L·1968 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jee[edit]

Deferred

Jee. I want to propose (discuss) a page move, but this page WP:RM does nothardly explain how to do that. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what your problem is. You started an RM discussion here, so it seems to me that you do know how to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: The edit you linked to was made after this section was started on the talk page here, so perhaps DePiep did figure out what to do after asking the question...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first RM that DePiep has submitted, here is an older one. So, if there is still a problem, please do give a better explanation, DePiep. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Found. "Proposed move" is to be found under "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves", as a "request" that is. Nice if you know it. Wbm1058 reminds us that this is not the first time an experienced editor got lost in the woods with this. (try this: set your mind to newby mode, and start reading from top of page WP:MOVE looking for: how to start a discussion to move). -DePiep (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeshivat Hakotel move[edit]

The correct capitalization is Yeshivat Hakotel, since that is how the school itself titles its name. The current page is miscapitalized, as Yeshivat HaKotel, which is incorrect. Danielmeboy (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Danielmeboy: I'm not sure you're correct about the school titling itself that way. From their official website [4] they seem to use "HaKotel" more often than "Hakotel" (although a few Hakotels are there!). Anyway, if you want to list this as a requested move, you should go to the request page Wikipedia:Requested moves, rather than raising it here on the talk page. There are detailed instructions on that page as to what you should do to list it. If you need any more assistance with that, please let me know on my talk page, or reply here, and someone will help you. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been done. Yeshivat Hakotel. And it's a pretty uncontroversial idea, notwithstanding poor copyediting on the Yeshiva's website. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it should be at HaKotel - this is standard Hebrew transcription for words with Ha (i.e. "the") appended to the start (e.g. Degel HaTorah). See WP:HEBREW#Formative_letters. This isn't uncontroversial, and needs to go through RM, so I've moved it back for the time being. Number 57 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dweller: it's only uncontroversial if everyone agrees that it's uncontroversial, and that's clearly not the case here! Feel free to start an RM though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Amakuru - I'm really not that fussed. It wasn't me that made the original request. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

'Disaster' word capitalization dispute[edit]

Pages restored to their proper titles. RGloucester 15:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. PaleAqua (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The request by RGloucester below is certainly not uncontroversial. Tony (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree - It would be best to leave it alone until the matter is settled, though I'm not sure where that discussion is supposed to take place. Krychek (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Controversial bold moves must be reverted per WP:BRD. That is an uncontroversial action. The only controversial actions that were taken were the original moves, and the modification of the redirects to obfuscate the BRD process. They must be restored to their longstanding titles, so that discussion can be had. Anything else is a travesty. The moves have no consensus. It is unacceptable to allow bold moves to remain a fait accompli because of bad faith practices by Dicklyon. RGloucester 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with RGloucester. This is how BRD is supposed to work, and why we have the section below to automatically revert bold moves that can't be undone by other editors. RMs can then start from the status quo ante. Dohn joe (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that is in fact the opposite of of the advice in WP:BRD. As it says, many times, in bold print, BRD is never a reason for reverting. If you don't agree with the change, start a discussion. Anything else would be the start of an edit war. (Furthermore, BRD is not official policy; it's just good advice.) Krychek (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
But the "R" in BRD stands for "Revert".... The process is 1) someone makes a bold edit; 2) someone else who disagrees reverts that edit; 3) the bold editor comes back and starts the discussion. BRD in itself is not a reason to revert. In other words, you don't revert every bold move just because you can. But you certainly are allowed to revert if you disagree with the bold move. Dohn joe (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how it works. When a bold undiscussed move is made, and it is contested, it is reverted to allow for discussion. I am contesting it. It must be reverted. The old titles are longstanding. BRD is simple: bold action, action is reverted, action is discussed. The status quo is the default. The longstanding title is the default. That's how it works. Bold changes without consensus are not allowed a fait accompli. Please stop disrupting a simple request. There is a reason that there is a section here called "requests to revert undiscussed moves". That's because undiscussed contested moves that are controversial are reverted, to allow for an RM to attain consensus and present evidence for a change. This is same with any other matter. There is no reason why Dicklyon's edits are special, and must be granted the special "fait accompli" status. The burden is on the person who wants to change the longstanding title, not on those who want to maintain the status quo. RGloucester 19:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"It must be reverted" is a bit of an overstatement, as (again) BRD is not official policy. Still, you have stated your case well, but please don't tell people when they are or are not allowed to give an opinion. If my statements are so ludicrous, you can trust the administrator to ignore them. I'd still like to know where this discussion is supposed to take place. Surely not on the talk page of each individual article? Krychek (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's up to the user that wants to make the change. I'm open to a mass RM, or individual RMs. RGloucester 21:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Krychek: yes, "It must be reverted" is putting it strongly, but while I wouldn't put it in those words, I do agree with RGloucester that it's the best way forward. You are worried about where the best place for the discussion would be, but in fact we have the multi-move discussions mechanism precisely for this reason. Discussion can take place on the talk page of one of the affected articles, but all the others will be notified, by the bot, that the process is taking place. Theoreticaly, RGloucester could initiate move requests the other way at this point in time; but my argument is that, for people participating, it is more confusing to have a "move back" request than it would be revert the moves first, and then initiating discussion. In general it's less confusing if the article remains at the long term title until the move request process is finished, and then moved if there is consensus to do so. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Do not revert — Renaming these articles was correct and did not need discussion - see WP:NCCAPS. The word "disaster" is not capitalized unless it is part of a proper noun (eg book or movie title). See other similar titles: 2009 Washington Metro train collision (not Train Collision), 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash (not Crash), September 11 attacks (not Attacks), 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (not Eruption) etc. No discussion is needed when things are renamed per basic English and WP guidelines. МандичкаYO 😜 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is needed, because there is no consensus, and because your position on this matter is contested. This is not the place for it. I believe that all the titles in question are proper names, and hence must be capitalised. That's why they've been capitalised since the moment of their creation. If a user wants to make such a change and move the articles away from the longstanding titles, he must demonstrate that there is evidence to support it. That cannot be done here. It must be done in an RM, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. RGloucester 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have any issue with the naming policy, then start a discussion about it at the naming policy article: WP:NCCAPS. Policies and guidelines are there for a reason. These are not "bold undiscussed moves" since the naming format has already been decided long ago, per WP:CONSENSUS/basic English. You are are the one who wants articles to be named contrary to both the WP policy/the English language itself, so the impetus is on you to change the policy, not for others to come around to your opinion. МандичкаYO 😜 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with the "naming policy". These are capitalised in RS as proper names, and must be capitalised per the MOS:CAPS guidelines. That's what the guidelines say. Unless evidence is provided to the contrary, they must remain capitalised. I have no idea what you're talking about. What an absurd argument, this is. These are bold moves against our policies and guidelines. They must be reverted to be discussed, so that evidence can be provided. I suppose your English is not my English. RGloucester 21:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
These are not proper names. Please research what "Proper names" are and what it takes for something to become a proper name. The WP:NCCAPS even uses the following example of how to title an article: 1993 Russian constitutional crisis (NOT 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis). If you can prove that "your English" is actually preferred to all known manuals of style, then please, go ahead and get started and challenge the guideline itself. МандичкаYO 😜 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If the debate over whether they are proper names is something that needs to be had, it needs to be had in an RM for these articles. It should not be had here. The longstanding titles remain until evidence is presented in favour of a move elsewhere. I agree that "1993 Russian constitutional crisis" should not be capitalised, as that's a descriptive title. That has no relevance here, where the events are capitalised as proper names in RS. If one sees "Darr Mine Disaster" and the like in books, it is clear that these moves must be discussed. Please read MOS:CAPS, which says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". It is not done at yours or Dicklyon's whims. It must be subject to consensus in an RM. This isn't the place to debate whether the titles are correct or incorrect, but to request a restoration of the status quo pending consensus in an RM, as is appropriate per BRD. The longstanding titles remain. RGloucester 23:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Why would there be a debate over something that has already been decided? Just because it's been capitalized in a book does not make it up for debate when it's clear to everyone else it's already been established. Notice that Chernobyl disaster, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, 2010 Copiapó mining accident etc etc etc etc are not capitalized. If you have nothing else to do with your time, please head over to → Category:Articles needing additional references here and get started. МандичкаYO 😜 23:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has been decided. Each individual case is different. Multiple of those you just cited are descriptive titles, not proper names. I don't have time to look at the RS for them. That doesn't have anything to do with these articles, which were moved without consensus, and contrary to the guidelines. There is no debate for me, as I'm just defending the status quo. The debate is for those that want to move the article. Please stop being flippant, and disrupting the standard Wikipedia processes. RGloucester 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
They were moved per standard Wikipedia and English guidelines. Again, go look up what proper names are. Obviously you do have plenty of time on your hands. МандичкаYO 😜 23:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruption here. There is no way one can say these were "moved per standard Wikipedia and English guidelines", given that I've shown that they were not. The correctness of the moves in question is irrelevant here, anyway. The only purpose of my request is to facilitate normal Wikipedia processes, that is, gaining consensus through an RM for controversial page moves. This is clearly controversial. RGloucester 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
How exactly am I being disruptive? 1) this is not a closed discussion and 2) It's imperative to note that these moves were done correctly, per WP's own manual of style (and all known English guidelines about proper nouns). Finding the Darr Mine disaster capitalized in "Supernatural Lore of Pennsylvania: Ghosts, Monsters and Miracles" (ahhh! Run and hide! Spooky English!) does not merit it being classified as a proper noun. 05:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You are being disruptive because you are either ignorant or purposely derailing a simple WP:BRD measure. This is not a discussion at all. These pages will be restored to their old titles, per WP:BRD, so that discussion can be had. The discussion doesn't take place here. Your opinion on what makes something a proper noun or not is not relevant to whether these must be reverted. Please halt. RGloucester 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not being distruptive to anyone (except to people who only want to get their way, apparently), nor am I being ignorant. Here's an even more specific guideline on naming conventions related specifically to events - WP:NCEVENTS. Notice NONE are capitalized. Can examples of these events be found capitalized because of an author's personal capitalization preference? Sure. Does it mean each and every one should be discussed? No. That's why WP:PG exist in the first place. Moving them was not a "bold" move that requires discussion, it was simply a proper one, like fixing anything else that was not titled correctly. МандичкаYO 😜 07:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Revert and then list the discussions - I agree that WP:BRD is not policy and it is not a suicide pact, but it is in my opinion quite a good rule of thumb for how to operate, and we should certainly apply it in this case. And Wikimandia respectfully, you cannot declare something to be uncontroversial off your own bat. If articles have existed at particular titles for a long time, and there are editors who actively wish to keep them at those titles, then the move is automatically controversial, and should be listed at WP:RM in the normal fashion. If you're so confident that the move is correct, then there should be no problem - it's just a week of listing after all, and you can present the arguments about NCCAPS that you've presented here. So, in summary, I would like to see these moves reverted before the RM discussions are listed, so that there is no confusion as to what the long term titles have been. To me the reversion is uncontroversial, and that's why we have the "revert undiscussed moves" section on the RM page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI Amakuru I didn't start this discussion (Tony1 did), nor did I move any of the original articles. I simply pointed out that these naming conventions already exist, therefore, there is no reason for these to be dubbed controversial moves. МандичкаYO 😜 10:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Fair enough, but I was just pointing out that your interpretation of "controversial" doesn't match my usual understanding of how the process works. RM discussions always involve lots of citations to relevant policies and conventions, such as you are doing here. That's fine. But when different people have different views on the matter, then it's controversial, and it goes up for discussion for a week. WP:RMUM is crystal clear on the process here: "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you can not revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move." It is clear from this text that RGloucester's request to revert the move is inherently *uncontroversial*. Arguments about the merits of the move should be made in the proper forum, not here on the RM talk page, and I would argue challenging the revert is not even a legitimate action. It's created a situation in which we're arguing on the RM talk page it's not clear how we move forward. Whereas my suggestion of reverting and listing would be the clear and unbiased way to move the discussion forward. Incidentally I don't have any opinion right now on the merits of the move, but I just think it's better to follow the proper RM process. It's one that has served us well over the years, and in general allows issues to be resolved decisively. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Amakuru, I understand what you're saying, but that is what guidelines are for - so articles can be titled as uniformly as possible without having to discuss each and every one ad nauseum. Established guidelines trump the WP:RMUM in nearly every case, and in those rare cases, it is up to the opponents of the established title to prove why it should not be titled that. The decision to not capitalize generic terms (disaster, explosion, collision, collapse, outbreak, etc) was made long ago, I think in 2007. See WP:DISASTER project. If the "very special" RGloucester wants an article to be titled something that goes against said established guidelines (see his list of demands here), then it is up to him to provide the rationale that sways others to his opinion. There are so many articles on Wikipedia that many are not titled correctly yet simply out of neglect - renaming them based on WP standards is just routine maintenance. Renaming them should not be seen as conroversial simply because others don't like the WP naming convention, because they can find one different example in a book, or because it has had that title a long time. A parallel example: all U.S. towns/cities all follow the "City, State" format of WP:USPLACE, unless they are among a handful of dateline cities such as Dallas or Los Angeles. If I find an article that only lists the town and not the state, the correct thing to do would be to promptly move it, not propose the move for discussion to establish consensus on what it should be called. Nor should I demand that 10 articles already renamed to follow the City, State convention be reverted until a "BRD" discussion can take place. The discussion already has taken place. МандичкаYO 😜 12:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming. I don't see any specific guidance here on whether "<event>" can ever be a proper noun, and if so, how it's determined whether it is, or any statement that "<event>" is never a proper noun. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I see examples of both proper name usage:
      • The South East Asia Earthquake 2005
      • The Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004
    • and examples of generic usage:
      • 2006 New York City plane crash
      • 1700 Cascadia earthquake – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Random searching finds mixed and unsettled usage. For example, see Category:Fires in Massachusetts. There I count five Fires using proper names, and six generic fires. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) appears to be the applicable naming convention. Again I don't see strong guidance on this issue. Although most examples shown are lower-case, the first advice is "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." Perhaps there are cases of established, universally agreed-upon common proper names. Nanking Massacre is given as an example, but with the caveat that "However, "massacre" probably shouldn't have been capitalized." I sense that there is stronger support for capitalization of man-made disasters, such as massacres and genocides. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Wow. Has it really been two years since the last edit to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) (26 March 2013‎). And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming was last edited 14 June 2008‎. These may be better locations in which to continue the dialogue. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)