Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

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

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)
QuartierLatin1968 I honestly think that a fairly extreme manifestation of WP:OWN is in operation here. You comment that I said that "There was belief and faith involved and the beliefs cannot be solely classified as mythology". Please note that "... the beliefs cannot be ... classified as mythology" but that "the beliefs cannot be solely classified as mythology".
You say "Argue, if you must, that some strong but unarticulated belief may motivate this". That can be done but is not needed. The fact is that people at the time had very religious practice. You mention: the pouring out of libation; begging a god; praying; building temples; burning all the rich thigh pieces of bulls and goats. Yes of course I am happy to argue in regard to their being a relationship between, to use some regularly used words, faith and deeds. Why else would the people at the time have gone through all the practices mentioned (and others) if there was no measure of belief involved. I have not mentioned profession of faith or anything else in a Catholic sense. I am saying that there is religion here and that this religion is not owned by myth. You mention a whole range of religious acts: pouring out of libation; begging a god; praying; building temples; burning all the rich thigh pieces of bulls and goats. They are all religious. They are not mythological actions though, fairly, these same forms of action may be described in myth.
I really do not know why we are going into this whole section of discussion. All that I have been saying is that personages such as Zeus were regarded as religious figures. He was regarded as a god. This is the form of reference by which he is described in fields such as mythology and religion. In description of divinities the terms god, goddess and deity have valid use. Solely categorising such a character as pertaining to mythology would be POV. I am sure that a "Priest of Zeus" would typically agree. Mythology does not have priests. Religion does, and characters like Zeus had a lot of them.
Akhilleus I am saying that religious practice is there. The fact is that people generally only do things if they think that there is some reason for doing so and, in religion (not that it is an important point), this often involves belief. The personal actions of people seem to me to up the stakes in regard to religion. The personal activities are religious in nature. They are not mythological actions. They are religious. GregKaye 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Greg, I'm not trying to claim ownership over anything. What I would like to establish, preparatory to making more specific move requests, is that while "mythology" is not a pejorative term, and it can legitimately be used in specific contexts (e.g. referring to Ovid's Metamorphoses), it does not encompass ancient religion. I think we agree on that point. I agree with most of what you say in your second paragraph and just about all of the third. Neptune (mythology) should absolutely be at Neptune (god) (or, if consensus goes that way, Neptune (deity)) because the god Neptune is not restricted solely to mythology. Gods should be called gods; religion should be called religion. But what I'm cautioning against, and I'm not the only one, is that the terms "belief" and "faith" don't encompass ancient religion either. If we assume that belief is the most important or defining part of this complex of attitudes, ideas, customs, places, and objects, we're imposing a Christian-influenced POV. That's all I'm trying to argue. I sincerely apologize if any of my comments seem to imply ownership over one or more articles; nothing could be further from my intention. Q·L·1968 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
QuartierLatin1968 ty. Personally I would prefer a character such as Neptune to wash into the harbours of Neptune (Roman god). I think gives valuable context and potentially disambiguates god. Britannica presents: "Neptune Roman god - Neptune, Latin Neptunus, in Roman religion, originally the god of fresh water; by 399 bce he was identified with the Greek Poseidon and thus became a deity of the sea..." While the issue of belief may be more relevant to other topics I do not fully understand the view, "that the terms "belief" and "faith" don't encompass ancient religion'. I really appreciate you mentioning the subject as it is not something that I had previously given thought.
I can well imagine that the concept of belief may not have been have been crystallised or perhaps just not put into words but I think that it is a stretch to say that, even if not philosophically, that belief was not psychologically involved. The ancients may not have developed a full conception of gravity and yet things still fell.
To my understanding the ancients put a lot of store in knowledge and I think that this is partly demonstrated within the List of knowledge deities. I also think I am perhaps right to say that part of this was "religious knowledge" or "knowledge of the 'gods'". Perhaps I have got this wrong but, in modern conceptions, we would define this as belief. I would certainly say that there was something (perhaps many things) going on psychologically with the ancients to make them make all their various sacrifices. While I admit that I may be influenced by preconceptions but I tend towards the view that belief could have been at least one of the prime motivators. GregKaye 17:00, 31 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 [1] 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)

Missing edit history (for WP:RM)[edit]

Hi y'all, I'm wondering why move requests don't show up in the page's edit history?

I'd made an 'uncontroversial technical request' yesterday and dropped in here today to check on its status. When I saw it had been cleared I thought to check the page history for details ... and there are none. Nor for a preceding request I'd taken note of. I've since confirmed that my request has in fact been fulfilled,[2] thank you, but am still left wondering about the lack of page history anomaly? --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kevjonesin, the actual list of discussions is not on the RM page itself, it is on a subpage, which is transcluded as a template. This subpage is located at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, and you can see the full history there. It is generally only updated by a bot, though, which responds to requests listed on individual talk pages. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kevjonesin: oh, and apologies I didn't read your question properly. The section for uncontroversial and technical requests is another transcluded subpage, at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves is not sufficiently big and bold enough to make all editors notice it when they edit that page to request moves. Is there anything more we can do to make them notice, or does Wikipedia already have so many "tags" that editors have trained themselves to look past them all? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • [edit conflict]Ah, Amakuru, I see. So basically, in practice, the sections function as embedded pages with there own separate 'article' and history pages. Could we please explore ways to make this more transparent to visitors on the main WP:RM page?
Perhaps tack a small "[history]" link beside/under/near the relevant section headings?
And/or make the section headers themselves wikilink to the appropriate subpages?

==<span id="TR"></span>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests|Requesting technical moves]]==

... and ...

==<span id="CM"></span>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial|Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves]]==

... and ...

==<span id="C"></span>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions|Current discussions]]==

Hmm ... As I've already got stuff mostly laid out here, above, and relevant browser tabs open for links and such, I may just go ahead and implement something now so we can see how it looks. If anyone finds the result objectionable feel free to adjust or revert, but please offer the courtesy of a response here to elaborate as to why and suggest alternatives. Thanks.
[@Wbm1058, I think you may have misread/misunderstood. This thread is about how/why edit history on WP:RM displays as it does. It's not a move request. Otherwise, as an editor who appears to be a frequent contributor to this page seems a bit 'short' today, I'll refrain from personally implementing my suggestions above and instead leave them to y'all to explore (or not) on 'your' page. ltr]
[Ha, just received a timely thanks from Ottawahitech for my comment opening this thread. Did wonders for my mood. I'll leave my tabs open for a bit. If folks care to offer assurances that I'll not be running into WP:OWN issues I'll be happy to take the time to implement the proposed changes or some variation thereof—if others have alternate ideas for adding to the transparency/'discoverability' as discussed above.]
--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, I think you do make a good point here. There are actually two related issues: yours with finding the history, and others who indeed have recently attempted to make requests on that page. While perhaps I'm the "primary overseer" of this system, I do not own it. Feel free to implement your ideas for improvement, per WP:BRD. I believe the rationale for making subpages was to more cleanly separate the move requests from the instructions, making it easier to track the history of changes to the instructions. Thanks, :-) Wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, One way to get notified when your technical request is implemented is to put the page you asked to have moved onto your watchlist. See Help:Watching pages. Typically, if your request is contested, or viewed as potentially controversial, it is converted to a discussion section on the article's talk page. Should editors automatically get notification pings when their technical requests are converted to controversial requests? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, Wbm1058, your usage of "that page" was ambiguous to me (i.e. which 'that')—and I think the big red triangle notice splashed in the middle of the thread startled me a bit, and my discovering it via dealing with an 'edit conflict' interface probably didn't help. Anyway I think I 'catch your drift' at this point. Your concern is that by making the section subpages readily accesible via a title link some folks will drift into editing directly on the subpages rather than inserting the requested copy/paste template code into the main WP:RM page, right? That makes sense to me actually now I've considered it. Dang, but I think I'm still misunderstanding ... I just went to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and checked the editing interface and I don't see the notice you posted above ... O/o ? Wbm1058, please elaborate as to what you were trying to address above, as at this point I feel that I myself was being hasty and would now prefer to have a better understanding before making changes. Am still/again confused as to target of pronoun, i.e. "that page". Explicitly which page, please? tnx --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, sorry, the red triangle is indeed intended to startle a little bit, and that's why I'm mystified when I see that there are apparently some editors who not only are not startled by it, but seem to miss it entirely. Edit the page Wikipedia:Requested moves – the entire page, not a section of it. Now do you see the notice? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058, temporarily adding move requested page to watchlist sounds like a good idea. Thanks, I'll do that if I bring another request in the future. As to whether I think users should get a notice if their request's status/category gets changed ... I'm not sure about 'should' (as in it being a requirement) but it certainly would be a courtesy and aid ease-of-discovery and such. Creating such a notice is beyond my present experience. Is such particularly involved/difficult to implement? I presume it would involve editing multiple templates?
As to ...

"Edit the page Wikipedia:Requested moves – the entire page, not a section of it. Now do you see the notice?"

... oh yeah, I see it there. But that's not one of the targets I was proposing. Hmm, in fact adding the links I proposed may well help steer people away from going there. And even if they edit the transcluded page directly (with the proper copy/paste template) it will still display the same as if the section edit link had been used, right?
[I think I'm remembering dealing with something sorta' similar when I was helping out at the Graphics Lab. Somehow had prominently linked to the proper section editing interface for user image editing requests. Oh yeah, we (I?) made a 'big red button' targeting such. Transcluded templates are in the mix there as well come to think of it. I've not messed with such in awhile. I'll go look at the Photography Lab and snoop the code. It's sounding like something less subtle than I was originally imagining may be useful here at WP:RM.]
--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Section 'request buttons'[edit]

I found the Photography workshop's—now green—button ... as on page ... and source code

== <center>'''Photography workshop user requests'''</center> ==

<center><span style="font-size:1.2em">''Submit a new request by pressing this button:''</span> [[File:Perspective-Button-Go-icon.png|48px|link=]]</center>

<!-- --------- requests start from below here -------------------- -->

Seems like it can probably be adapted. Suggestions on how to tweak the targeting for use here on WP:RM would be welcome. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

p.s.— For now I think I'll go ahead and implement 'plan A', section wikilinks, as discussed previously. Button is 'mission creep' but seems well worthwhile if some folks are using the full page 'edit source' option instead of going to the (sub)sections as directed. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Further examples (from image link code above):

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard[edit]

There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [3] [4]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards and similar pages would be very welcome. Since moves often involve a lot of drama, I figured you guys might be particularly knowledgeable.

The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Can we please scrap relisting? Right now there are at least two slam-dunk move requests that are held up unnecessarily and inexplicably by it - Talk:First_date_(meeting) and Talk:Movements_for_civil_rights#Requested_move_22_March_2015. All it takes is one opposer (or supporter) of a move request to delay the process and force supporters (or opposers) to keep checking up on the request for another week or more. Move requests that haven't yet reached a consensus but are perhaps close to it are never actually closed on time anyway, and the toughies are left to languish for a month anyway, so what's the purpose of relisting? Red Slash 19:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The two move requests you cite are radically different in nature. First date may be obvious, but the relisting editor also converted the request from a single-page to a multiple-page request. So the re-list is perhaps reasonable on procedural grounds, to give a full-week notice to watchers of talk:First date (disambiguation). "Civil rights movements" is an interesting one which I feel indeed merits a re-list. I'm finding the arguments of the minority to be particularly compelling, while the arguments of the majority supporting the move are surprisingly weak. While we don't count !votes around here, soliciting more discussion so as to avoid charges of "super-voting" seems appropriate to me. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say agree with Wbm1058. That's a good spot on the relisting as a multi-move. I always think it's fairer if all affected pages get included, even in fairly slam dunk cases, as some may be watching those spaces and have some knowledge that we at WP:RM aren't aware of. As for "civil rights movements", it was clearly a contentious discussion, judging by the amount of discussion that went on surrounding the votes, and soliciting more input can only be a good thing. One week or two weeks are not a long time in Wiki-land, and the aim here is to secure the *right* result, not just the one that you may or may not favour. So if a load of people come during the second week with valid reasons for opposing that move, then it's a good thing for Wikipedia... @Red Slash: when you say "force supporters (or opposers) to keep checking up on the request for another week or more" you make it sound like a sort of war, where everyone has to protect their viewpoint and fight anyone who tries to move the discussion in a different direction. Whereas in fact it's about figuring out the correct result through consensus building. In general if there's recent discussion going on we shouldn't close either way, to allow full airing of viewpoints.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I always keep tabs on move requests I've participated in, to see if they get closed the way I believe or not. And if someone raises a point that I think deserves a response, I'm all about replying. Your proposal here that "if there's recent discussion going on we shouldn't close either way" is innovative and is not found in WP:RMCI to my knowledge currently--which is not intended as a criticism, since we are kinda talking about changing RMCI here, just an observation. Red Slash 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not related to either of these two, but I am concerned by some of the relisting I've seen happening recently. On one occasion the discussion had four or five participants, all of whom supported the move. The discussion was then relisted by an admin who was apparently opposed to it. To me this simply looks like an abuse of process. Number 57 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In situations like that, even as a non-admin, I never feel bad about closing over a relisting. There's no guideline or suggestion that an uninvolved closer ever has to wait once seven days have passed, regardless of a relisting or not. And I agree that I've seen those relistings too, and it is frustrating. In fact, in direct contrast to WP:RMCI, I've even seen unopposed and unsupported move requests get relisted. This specifically violates:

Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy.

Only if real differences have been exposed and discussion hasn't yet reached a point where they get resolved (but it likely will) should we relist; I'm not convinced that such situations really happen all that often and that it's worth the wait. Red Slash 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Fair notice: I've edited a fair bit on RMCI, but that part far predates my contributions to the page.
Re: "There's no guideline or suggestion that an uninvolved closer ever has to wait once seven days have passed, regardless of a relisting or not." I think there was at one point, and I think I removed it without objections. More generally, it sounds like this is a question of how the process is being used, rather than a problem with the process itself. Discussions often get several more opinions added all at once upon relisting, and that can be very helpful. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


An Editor made a controversial move of an article without discussing it on this page. I reverted it. He again reverted it to his preferred title. I am unable to revert his change again as the website will not let me. Any advice? I don't want to list it as a requested move because he is the one wishing to make the move; I want it to stay at the place it has been for some years. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests § Requests to revert undiscussed moves. See also Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions: "according to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a link to the ArbCom ruling." - Wbm1058 (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The article concerned was not Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), and they are the only articles where moves are required to be discussed at IECOLL. It was never envisaged that it should apply to any other article. I'm not sure why you thought it necessary to put that in.
For the record, I opened a discussion on the article talk page on 1 February. Neither Frenchmalawi nor anybody else responded for over two months. When one editor finally signaled his support I did the move. The move cannot be called controversial when nobody even wanted to talk about it. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scolaire: actually the wording of that arbcom seems slightly confusing - on the one hand it says "discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles", which would appear to include all articles relating to Ireland, particularly those related to naming of entities. On the other hand, it does explicitly list the three main articles in brackets after that. But anyway, notwithstanding that, I agree that although you were justified in making the move in a WP:BOLD fashion following the informal chat on the talk page, it has now become clear that it is not uncontroversial, and it should therefore be reverted back to the old title, and a formal RM started to gather community consensus and lay the matter to rest. I have now made a technical request for them to be put back to the long term titles. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Amakuru: the ArbCom case concerned the current name of the current state, specifically whether the article on the current state should be at "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland". Predecessor states were not part of the disagreement or of the discussion, therefore they were not within the ambit of the ArbCom case. Once you understand this, there is no ambiguity in the ruling: it was only meant to refer to those three articles. I do, of course, respect your judgement concerning the present case. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scolaire: thanks for the info on the Ireland naming, that makes a lot of sense. And thanks for the message about the present case. Maybe I'm sometimes a bit too much of a stickler for procedure, and I'm well aware of the many good times to apply WP:IAR, but in cases like this, I think we end up with a more satisfactory result when the process is followed as the guidelines suggest. The very fact that users have come to you with this discussion and argument is a good case in point - the debate is lingering on even though you consider it put to bed. With a formal RM, and the subsequent close and option for move review if necessary, the end result is that even those who disagree with the outcome usually accept it, and questions are put to bed for a long time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Moves contrary RM results[edit]

Scalhotrod moved page Talk:Jill Kelly (pornographic actress) to Talk:Jill Kelly (actress) etc...
There's a flurry of these moves, following failed RMs being moved anyway, or non-admin closes of RMs, repeated moves by 2 or 3 editors of the same articles, etc etc etc, too much activity to keep track of, can somebody else put an eye on it please? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any others (specific ones) that you're thinking of? Red Slash 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you'd have to look at the contribs of the two editors doing them, there are too many to keep track of. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

addition of significant section without any discussion or consensus[edit]

I have removed the following section from the RMCI because it has been added unilaterally over the last few days by a single editor @RedSlash with no apparent consensus by any other editors and/or admins. I do not think it is appropriate without some discussion and/or consensus on its implications and its wording.

Please give an explanation for contentious or divided requests{{shortcut|WP:EXPLAINTHECLOSE|WP:CLOSINGSTATEMENT}} Remembering that, of course, a requested move is not a vote, whenever you close a request that had a very close numerical count, please clarify things for the "losing" side by issuing a statement of explanation. If one side's arguments were fallacious or ran counter to policy, for instance, those who made those arguments deserve to know that. After a period of discussion that ends 6-5 or 8-8, any decision other than "no consensus" probably demands a brief explanation, at least. Similarly, a 7-4 or 20-12 request that ends in a close of "no consensus" or one in favor of the minority's side also probably demands an explanation.

This, again, is not to say that such a decision cannot or should not be made; we do not count votes at Wikipedia to determine a consensus, period. If (say) twenty editors give rationales that ignore sources and policy, while twelve editors issue arguments that follow them, it is your responsibility as closer to issue a decision against the numerical majority. But a clarifying comment can make it easier for the several real-life human beings who disagree with your decision to understand what their next step is (whether to change their perspectives, learn more about our titling policies, gather more sources for next time, or even take it to move review).

--Mike Cline (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good thing to explain closes that may be considered contentious. I don't see any reason why a closer shouldn't. Red Slash 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
While your sentiment seems reasonable and the section added language reflects your sentiment, it is fraught (from my experience) with many problematic issues.
  • What constitutes a "contentious close"? Who decides?
  • RMs become "contentious" for any number of varied reasons--ethnic sentiment, nationalistic sentiment, battleground issues, obsessive renaming based on Primary Topic, diacritics, over/under disambiguation, upper/lowercasing, ENGVAR, science vs lay terminology, on and on. In many cases, the contentiousness has absolutely no relevance to the titling decision, but opposers and supporters don't see that.
  • RMs become contentious because our titling policy and style guidelines are a mismash of inconsistently with conflicts and often incompatible and competing title characteristics.
  • RM discussions on contentious issues are rarely collectively coherent or rational and often tainted by personal attacks and uncivil discussion.
  • There are more ....
When a closer reviews the discussion, the article and the sources a decision must be made. But explaining that decision can be problematic for all the reasons above and more, and in my experience rarely placates those who believe they "lost" the discussion anyway. Does obligating (as the paragraph implies) the closer to explain the close obligate all those involved in the discussion to accept it? Probably not since we've specifically created the Move Review process to allow the "losers" as you characterize them to challenge the close.
There are rationales that opposers/supporters of move requests make that I find utterly nonsensical in context--absolute bullshit that should have no bearing on the discussion but I rarely call those out in my closes because calling another editor's opinion bullshit just isn't productive. My favorite is the editor who says something to the effect : "Most readers are going to search for this over that" With up to 30 WP million readers a day and a half-billion a month, such pronouncements are not only arrogant, but without any credibility. Even The Amazing Criswell would not make such pronouncements given the odds.
While I believe it is perfectly reasonable for RM closers to provide rationale for their decisions, it should be neither obligatory or encouraged. RMs are not competitions and nothing in the guidance should imply that they are. RMs take time to review, decide, close and make whatever follow-on edits are required. Forcing obligatory closing rationale on closers will do nothing to improve the RM process, will add more time to closes, and more than likely discourage future closers from even participating, especially when zealots begin trying to enforce such guidance on closers they disagree with.

--Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, sensible removal.  Philg88 talk 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Bug around RM templates[edit]

There’s a formatting bug around the RM templates. Please see Template talk:Requested move#Markup bug for details and discuss. — (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland[edit]

There has been an article about the short-lived UK country called Southern Ireland which existed from 1921-1922 on Wikipedia for years. It was always titled Southern Ireland. Just as its sister country, Northern Ireland is so titled. The short-lived country is referenced hundreds of places on Wikipedia. Recently, on 6 Feb., an editor (i) changed the title to "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)" and (ii) created a dab page for Southern Ireland. It is really frustrating that every time we must now properly reference this former UK country we must type "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)|Southern Ireland". This change was entirely unnecessary and is retrograde. Did any editor or reader ever experience confusion on account of its name? Well, if they had, there was a perfectly good hat note at the top of the article. This move was made without any discussion whatsoever. I don't know how it can be undone technically as the person went off and created a dab page where the article should be. Am I the only one who thinks this sort of behaviour is disruptive and wrong and needs to be stamped out? I don't think its right that the editor who made this change without discussing it now has his changes in effect without having ever discussed them or seeking input from others. My view the changes should be reverted and then if there is still an apetite for change, discussion and consensus should be achieved in the usal way...Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I correct myself on one point, the move was in fact discussed over a period of about five days by a tiny numbher of editors. We are discussing the title of a UK country and that's how much discussion there was. There really ought to have been a posting on requested moves page. This is an important article about the only contry that has ever left the UK. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice if editors took the hint from that Arbcom ruling and, at minimum, assumed that moving anything with "Ireland" in the title requires discussion and a formal RM.
But, at least there was some minimal discussion among several editors at Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–22) § Article title – and some moves to temporary titles along the way which should have caught the attention of anyone watching these articles.
Southern Ireland is now a dab with four line items. Practically speaking, this is too much to be handled with a hatnote. I see that the previous hatnote was pushing the limits on hatnote length:
This page is about a part of the United Kingdom that ceded in 1922. For the subsequent independent states, see Irish Free State and Republic of Ireland. For the European Parliament constituency, see South (European Parliament constituency).
That hatnote did not even mention what I think of when I hear "southern Ireland" – simply southern Ireland. And by that I mean southern Republic of Ireland. The area defined by the map in South (European Parliament constituency) is roughly what I'm imaging. Though I am just now learning that the Republic is divided into three European Parliament constituencies. I definitely do not equate "Southern Ireland" with the entire Republic, no more than I would think "East Virginia" meant the entire state of Virginia, and not just the area around Virginia Beach and Chesapeake Bay.
So, I endorse that move and am pleased to see no links to the Southern Ireland disambiguation in article-space. Rather than call for reverts of all this now, I suggest appealing with a multi-move request if you want to change it back:
— Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and thoughts. As for the dab being too long. Let's face it. There is no Wikipedia article on Eastern Ireland, why would any one think that there would be a Wikipedia article on Southern Ireland in that same sense. There was no need for any disambiguation around that. As for the EU constituency. Serioiusly? Can it really be said that any one has ever input Southern Ireland and expected to read about an EU constituency. The supposed need for a dab is really far, far-fetched. We have dumped a title for a country to use it for an unnecessary DAB page and left the country with a very cumbersome name "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)". I regret that I am now the one who has to raise a request move for thes pages which were moved without being discussed here....Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Frenchmalawi: I think Eastern Ireland reinforces my point. That's a redirect to Leinster, which is a province in eastern Ireland. As Munster is a province in southern Ireland. East Virginia is actually a disambiguation as well. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Wbm1058 I want to take your advice and make the requests...Could you give me the link to where I can copy and paste the below request in. I don't know where I am supposed to do that. Or if you can paste it in for me there on my behalf, all the better. Thanks. I don't think I've formatted the text correctly, could you help? Not sure how to do it. I want to make the exact requests you mentioned. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–22) § Requested move 12 April 2015Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


This editor is making a mass amount of moves of diaspora articles to immigration articles ..I dont think they understand the differences between the two. What can we do here to fix all these? This is not the first time theses moves have been done by the editor. -- Moxy (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Increasing participation in RM discussions[edit]

One of the obvious difficulties in gaining consensus in RM discussions is lack of participation. Of course many times this results in relisting. I have always believed that WikiProjects related to any given article ought to be notified of RM discussions involving an article under their project’s umbrella. Many editors are shy about this when they start an RM for fear being accused of canvassing. I would like to see wording something like this in the “Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves” section of this process guideline.

When an RM is initiated, requesting editors should notify any project listed on the article’s talk page or applicable to the target name that an RM has been initiated using a simple template that might be something like this {{subst:RM initiated|article name|new name|discussion link}}. The template when placed on the project talk page would render something like this: A requested move discussion has been initiated for article to change the title to new name. Members of this WikiProject are invited to participate. Discussion Link.

Thoughts? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Maybe it could go further and be automated in the same way that DELSORT works in conjunction with Afd with automatic project notification.  Philg88 talk 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd support it too. But I think Wikiprojects of the target page should be notified too, if necessary. For example, if someone proposed moving "James Jameson (lacrosse player)" to the undisambiguated page and that would move another article from that name, those projects should be notified. Calidum T|C 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree about target name as well. Proposed language adjusted. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This already done by the AAlertBot feeds (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Article alerts for WP:Israel). I have watchlisted the ones relevant to the WikiProjects I am a member of, which allows me to see all RMs that appear. Do we really need to duplicate this on WikiProject talk pages? Number 57 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require all WikiProjects to setup AAlertBot feeds for their project and then get members to follow like you do. Not all editors use their watchlists the same. Not saying its not a viable methodology, but today, too many RMs have pitiful participation because they go unnoticed by projects associated with the RM articles. The real objective here is to get requestors to drive participation of interested editors through explicit project notification. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)