Jump to content

Portal talk:Civil rights movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Requested move 14 March 2018: alter !vote and rationale + respond
Line 71: Line 71:
:::::*This issue was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Civil_Rights_Movement&diff=830467747&oldid=830462019 brought to our attention] by Dekimasu at the beginning of this discussion on 15 March 2018.
:::::*This issue was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Civil_Rights_Movement&diff=830467747&oldid=830462019 brought to our attention] by Dekimasu at the beginning of this discussion on 15 March 2018.
::::::*My rationale above has been altered. &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>01:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)</small>
::::::*My rationale above has been altered. &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>01:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)</small>
::::::::If ''"Portals are for our readers and so their page titles should conform to the same policies and guidelines as articles in mainspace"'', then how can these Portals exists?
::::::::*[[Portal:U.S. Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:Maryland Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:Canada Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:California Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:New York Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:Washington Roads]]
::::::::*[[Portal:Michigan Highways]]
::::::::*[[Portal:UK Trams]]
::::::::*[[Portal:London Transport]] → [[Transport for London]]
::::::::[[User:Mitchumch|Mitchumch]] ([[User talk:Mitchumch|talk]]) 06:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:21, 23 March 2018

Template:WikiProject American civil rights movement

Requested move 14 March 2018

– There was an RM (which later became an RFC), at what is now Talk:Civil rights movement#Requested move 18 February 2018, which was closed today with a decision to move that article from African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement. During the course of that debate, the two pages mentioned here, the portal and the WikiProject, were created to provide more coverage of this topic. The issue of capitalisation of this term was discussed at length during the debate, and the decision made there (which reaffirmed an earlier decision on capitalisation at Talk:Civil rights movement#Requested move 23 November 2017) was that the term "Civil rights movement" should not be capitalised per WP:NCCAPS. It therefore seems logical to me that these recently created portal and WikiProject pages should be moved so that they are consistent with the case used in the main article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Please provide links to Wikipedia guidelines that explicitly state that WikiProjects and Portals must follow the identical guidelines that apply to article titles. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The portal is part of the public facing spaces of Wikipedia, therefore it's subject to WP:NCCAPS just like any other page in the encyclopedia. The WikiProject may be a toss-up, and if it was a long-standing one I wouldn't bother including it, but since it's recently created, and was created while the previous RM was active, there's no really good reason not to make it consistent with the topic article that it covers. Furthermore, the WikiProject was actually first created as Wikipedia:WikiProject American civil rights movement, before a move to the current title, and the move to the current title was contested, so it's not like the current title is a long-term stable one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your arguments. But, I'm only seeking links to Wikipedia guidelines that explicitly state WikiProject and Portal pages must follow the identical guidelines that apply to article titles. Mitchumch (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's codified in policy, but there is no conceivable reason why we would use a title other than that of the article. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The identical words of the article title is used. If it's not codified in policy, then there is no basis for this proposed rename. The creator of the Portal and WikiProject chose this name. The current name is widely recognized. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better not to keep poking at this unless it's necessary, especially the WikiProject. There seem to be many WikiProjects that capitalize themselves. Category:Civil Rights Movement could go to WP:CFD, though. Dekimasuよ! 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I'm not sure that the inner mechanics of Wikipedia need to be consistent with the outer face we present to the public readership. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that to suggest that a portal is not "the outer face we present to the public readership"? And on what basis are you suggesting that this would this be "a foolish consistency"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is to suggest that article pages, more so than any other space, are the public face of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia spaces are as accessible to the public readership as the article space. But, all Wikipedia spaces are not governed by the same guidelines as the article space. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that the current title of the WikiProject and Portal are somehow very different from the article title is a gross misrepresentation of reality. The words are identical. Without support from one or more Wikipedia policies or guidelines this renaming effort is without merit. I also agree that we need not relitigate the last RM here. Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should relitigate the last RM here, make another RfC over it if need be, per Landless People's Movement, Homeless Workers' Movement, and Landless Workers' Movement. The Civil Rights Movement is the proper noun for the era and the events of the era, as important to the flow of history as World War I and World War II. The portal, under the control of the project, should certainly use the correct name. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: I don't really understand your argument here. Why shouldn't the portal (which, as noted, is a public-facing part of the Wiki) have the same name with the same capitalisation as the article to which it directly refers? Never mind guidelines and policies and suchlike, what is the logical reason for this being capitalised while the article is not? And to be honest even the WikiProject, ditto, what reason is there for it to have a different caps from the article? A WikiProject is not public-facing, but it's on the public internet, and is not owned by any particular individual or individuals (particularly so for this one, which was only very recently created) Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru There is nothing I can say that will satisfy you, because I disagree with you. I first asked for guidelines or policies to see the basis for your position. Since you've presented no guideline or policy, then the only basis for your argument is you don't like it. I think the best move forward for you and I is to accept that we disagree. Mitchumch (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchumch: my reasons for requesting the move are presented clearly in the header of this move request. The rationale is to make the portal name consistent with the name of the article it corresponds to, which to me is WP:COMMONSENSE, if nothing else. I don't know if there is an explicit policy to cover that specific case, but precedence says that portal names follow article naming, and this is usually uncontroversial - see for example [1][2][3] and lots more examples where people have requested portals be moved to match WP:NCCAPS, and admins have gone ahead and done it. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but I'd like to understand why you disagree, that's all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your first example above the move was initially rolled-back to receive WikiProject feedback. Since the WikiProject didn't object, the move was made. The other two moves were made with no objection. The takeaway from your three examples is that the WikiProject chooses the name of the Portal. This WikiProject happens to know that the correct name for the event is a proper noun, the Civil Rights Movement, and that its main article was stably upper-cased for the vast majority of its existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru To understand my position, please reread my posts throughout this discussion. In regards to your links, they were as Randy states - uncontested. That is not the case here. WP:NCCAPS applies to article pages. Portals or WikiProjects are not mentioned in that Wikipedia guideline. In regards to the "public face" argument, Google search privileges article pages over all other Wikipedia spaces, including Portals and WikiProjects. As examples, see:
The only article topic with the most visible Portal links are in article infoboxes for Anime and manga related articles:
  • Google search for Anime - here - Wikipedia article is first entry, but Portal and WikiProject not listed up to 10 search pages
  • Google search for Manga - here - Wikipedia article is first entry, but Portal and WikiProject not listed up to 10 search pages
  • Wikipedia article for Anime - Pageview daily averages - 5,209 views
  • Wikipedia article for Manga - Pageview daily averages - 2,830 views
  • Portal:Anime and manga - Pageview daily averages - 135 views
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga - Pageview daily averages - 38 views
The above examples are probably representative of all Portal and WikiProject pages. They are in practice part of the "inner mechanics" of Wikipedia. They are not article pages, Google search does not treat them as article pages, and neither does Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Mitchumch (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous rationale

Was going to close this debate, but both pages appear to be move-protected. So instead I will lend my support. When this issue of upper- vs. lower-cased titles applies to Portal and Project pages, it must be settled by editors since policy and guidelines allow for it. I support this requested move mainly for consistency, and I would reverse that in a hot minute if consensus for such consistency, as outlined by the nom, were to change. Opposers are swimming upriver, because community consensus supports these page moves.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paine Ellsworth, your comment gives a good opportunity. What policies and guidelines allow for all editors to decide on the names, and not just the members of the WikiProject? That seems the point of contention. Mitch asked the nominator to outline policies and guidelines which govern this decision. I'd think a closer would have to clearly outline those policies and guidelines in order to move the chosen project name to lower-case. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies and guidelines "allow" for editors to get together and work toward consensus whenever they are not specific about the application of the issue, in this case decapping a Portal page title and a WikiProject page title. This happens very frequently in page-move debates. When policies and guidelines are non-specific, then it is left to debate and consensus (or the lack of consensus) to decide how to title article and non-article pages. The nom has been forthcoming about the community decisions that have been made. Those decisions do seem to apply to this requested move. And there is a correct venue to challenge those community decisions and consensuses; however, this RM is not it.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting this RM should become an RfC? Or maybe this RM should be frozen until the question is decided: who gets to name a WikiProject, the members of the project or an RM. The consensus here is to allow the WikiProject to name it, although some non-WikiProject editors want to lower-case the portal. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am not suggesting that "this RM should become an RfC", not at all. Not even sure if that can or should be done. This RM is part of the common practice of renaming pages, and only renaming pages. Your comments above appear to be in direct conflict with an RfC consensus, so if you or any editor disagrees with that community consensus, there is a venue other than this RM in which that should take place. Since this RM has been proposed, then it should run its course as a requested move.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want "consistency", then you can move the article page to upper case and then "consistency" will be achieved. The term is a proper noun and a name for a unique historical event. Why does "both pages appear to be move-protected" stop this RM from being closed? Mitchumch (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would provide consistency among page titles; however, it would not be consistent with community consensus as found in the above page-move proposal. I was unable to close because I am not an administrator, I am only a page mover. Page movers cannot rename fully-move-protected pages, only admins can do that. So the protection of these pages will not stop this debate from being closed, it just means that only an admin will be able to close this debate and move these pages if that is their decision.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not have closed it as no consensus, because that is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No consensus only applies if good arguments are made on both sides, yet there hasn't actually been any refutation of my nomination arguments here, or explanations as to why consistency between these pages and the article they correspond to would not be a good thing. I've only seen attempts to relitigate the article naming discussion and other claims that naming conventions and RMs don't apply to portals and WikiProjects, despite all precedence saying they do. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "Portals are for our readers and so their page titles should conform to the same policies and guidelines as articles in mainspace", then how can these Portals exists?
Mitchumch (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Civil_rights_movement&oldid=832000034"