Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"

Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

This process is botched

The RM process is botched. Only a few editors bother to go onto article talk pages; that means that only a few users contribute to RM discussions. Let XFD handle move discussions; that part of Wikipedia actually has !votes involving more than 3 users. KMF (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

They need to be separate because deletion issues are usually a higher priority than move issues. That is, whether an article should continue to exist is more critical than what it should be titled. We don't want to mix the two. That said, we could make the RM process more like the XFD process, by having discussions in a centralized location rather than at each article talk page. Of course, the main reason to not have XFD discussions on article talk pages does not apply to move discussions: discussions would be lost upon deletion; that's not the case for RMs, of course. But you're saying we're likely to get more participation if we had RM discussions elsewhere? Maybe you're right. What's the typical daily XFD count vs RM count? --В²C ☎ 02:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that RM discussions tend to disproportionately attract input from a small number of RM regulars. I guess this works well for cases involving consistency with the more general naming conventions. I don't think this normally works so well when the underlying issue is a content question. Enlisting more participation will definitely be helpful in the latter case. I'm not sure if changing the location of these discussions is going to make a difference; unless there are dedicated topical log pages where discussions will get transcluded? but that's sort of redundant to what the article alerts do anyway. I think one possible course of action is to try to involve individual editors in specific cases, for example by sending talk page messages to the major contributors of the article or to participants in related previous discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Typically not the case, actually. Yes, there are a handful of people who do comment on most things, and a handful of us who close, but that is the same as XfD. In most project areas that are at all active, you will get comments from people who are involved in the content area. Having a mix of RM regulars with no particular feelings about the content area along with content specialists is one of the things that makes the RM process work very well. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it works so well that I avoid it whenever I can. – Uanfala (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you seem to be part of the problem you are complaining about. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess we might have been exposed to different subpopulations of RM regulars. A more or less representative discussion for my experience so far is what's currently going on at Talk:Hebrew language#Requested move 28 January 2018. This is the kind of silliness that I'm used to seeing at RM discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Over time, I've gradually increased the number of notifications sent out by my RMCD bot... to relevant WikiProject talk pages, when they aren't subscribed to article alerts... to talk pages of the targets of the requested move, when those exist and aren't redirects... to the top of the articles themselves. Perhaps sending talk page messages to the major contributors of the article is the last frontier for RMCD bot-generated notices... I'm not sure how much that would help, but I'll keep that idea on my back burner... unless there is a groundswell of demand for that. Personally, I contribute my share of participation in this area, but if I took the time to comment on every RM discussion, I wouldn't have much time left to get anything else done. And a lot of my "anything elses" are areas where there is even less participation than there is at RM. And regarding XFD, I very rarely take time to participate there. wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TonyBallioni above when he says what makes the RM process work so well is the mix of RM regulars and those involved more with the content of the article whose title is being considered. That said, I'd say the mix already favors the content interests more than it should. I see more and more short-sighted decisions that don't take into account consistency with our broadest principles (WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). So, I would not favor extending the notice audience... But maybe a centralized location for RMs would help with consistency... Then any content editor notified about some one RM proposal would be taken to a page displaying all of the active RM proposals and discussions, and would get that exposure accordingly, instead of just looking at the one proposal on the article's talk page without any broader context. I kind of like it. --В²C ☎ 19:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this page (WP:RM) the "centralized location for RMs"? That's what it's intended to be... if we transcluded every full discussion onto WP:RM it would be a real heavyweight, page-load-time wise! WP:AFD doesn't have every deletion discussion on it. Each discussion is on its own separate page, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squishies. What would be the point of making Wikipedia:Requests for move/Squishies instead of just making a new section on Talk:Squishies? wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Point taken, but there is a difference. When I go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_January_23 because of one deletion proposal I see the content ALL the discussions from today. Are RM discussions inherently longer than XfDs? --В²C ☎ 22:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Log/2018 January 23. That just shows the first five, but the bot could write the full report and dynamically update it. Helpful? – wbm1058 (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TfD a better place for template re-titling discussions?

This was triggered by this move review of the RM of {{refimprove}}. There is nothing wrong with the RM process for articles. However, I am open to the idea that there should be a different process for templates, since that's an entirely different set of standards. The assertion that WP:RM was also for templates seems to originate in this edit from 2006, and I couldn't find the discussion that led to that, if there was one. It seems to have been accepted without comment at the time, possibly because it was a very natural outgrowth of the technical aspect of the pre-RM state of affairs, which was "if you can't move it yourself, find an admin and ask them to move it". However, these days the vast majority of requested moves are decided on WP:Article titles-related factors. I wonder if WP:Templates for discussion wouldn't be a better place for template re-titling discussions. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support sending all template renames redirects depreciations and deletions to WP:TfD. Templates have technical complications and subtleties not incommon with articles or project pages, and Naming Criteria were not written with any intention to apply to templates. To have renames, but not redirection or deprecation under another process doesn’t make a lot of sense. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Template redirects are still discussed at WP:RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • True, but for templates that are already redirects (and are thus not templates but redirects in templatespace). Functioning, currently used templates get discussed at TfD. If you want to convert a used template into a redirect, I don’t think it is normal to go to RfD, and I think it is less than optimal to go to WP:RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I'm convinced that move review, and this entire section really, began simply because KATMAKROFAN didn't like the result of the RM. The issue wasn't with the move discussion, or the process behind it, or where it's located, but rather with the fact that it wasn't advertised, and therefore few people actually saw it. WP:RM should be the place for all move discussions, articles or not, not elsewhere simply because one user didn't like the result of a discussion. The solution isn't moving the discussion elsewhere; rather, it should be to advertise the discussion in relevant places. The same thing would happen if this was moved to TfD and the discussion wasn't advertised.

TL;DR: this process isn't botched; KMF just didn't like the result of the discussion. Have another discussion at WP:RM in 6 months (per the close at the move review), and advertise it more. SkyWarrior 19:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi SkyWarrior, while you're right about what sparked this main section, the proposal to transfer to WP:TFD came from me, and I was not involved in the original discussion. I've wondered for a long time why template renaming should be in the same forum as article renaming, since they are based on entirely different principles. There aren't really any template naming guidelines. The TFD regulars, who deal with templates all the time, would most likely be far better judges of what the various templates should be named than the editors who frequent the WP:RM process.--Aervanath (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Still strongly oppose moving move discussions from here to wherever. WP:RM was created for a reason: to request a move of a page. This should apply not just to articles, but to project pages, essays, templates, categories, etc. as well. This page isn't called "Requested move of articles", just "Requested moves", and it should stay like that. And just because a small group of editors may have a better knowledge on a subject over another small group of editors should not be a reason to move processes. We can easily just ask them to join the RM discussion, as it should've gone in the first place. SkyWarrior 20:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll add this here, but I actually think throwing this to the TfD regulars would be a strong negative of this proposal. The crowd that is there tends to focus on use and the technical areas of Wikipedia. RMs on the other hand focus on what we think someone would call something, which is just as useful for templates as it is for articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose TfD tends to be filled with an even smaller subset of the community than RMs do, and the rules there make substantially less sense to the average user than those at RM do. The RM process is straightforward, attaches the conversation to the talk page for future editors to easily find, and above all, isn’t broken in this regard. I see no reason to change. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Bot text formatting

Sorry if there is some technical limitation and this has been discussed in the past. Is there a reason the bot has formatted the number of relisted discussions like this — (Discuss)ions —with parentheses, capitalization, and part of the word underlined? It looks like this has been in place since the addition to the page last May, but I presume changing it requires changes to the bot. Dekimasuよ! 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I understand the formatting in the list itself, just not in the header. Dekimasuよ! 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago, see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 30 § Discuss

I did it that way in the header so that would serve as the "key" to explain why the partial underlining is done elsewhere. I'm open to suggestions of better ways to make the indication for bot-recognized relistings. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It threw me off at first, but I've gotten used to it now. Dekimasuよ! 19:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly not happening. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 17:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requested moves → Wikipedia:Proposed moves – The title is consistent with Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• We also have Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requested articles, etc., so consistency does not seem to be a clear factor in favor of moving the page. As is true for most of those examples, the processing of technical requests using tools/permissions is involved in many actions here. Further, technical requests often don't require the discussion a "proposal" would imply. Note that this was also suggested ten years ago, and although I closed that discussion as "no consensus," under the way the page is currently run it would have been closed as "consensus not to move"/"not moved." Dekimasuよ! 19:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I realize it might be a painful change but I think it probably worth it. After all these "requests" are proposals (unlike some of the examples from Dekimasu which are literally requests (like RFCs are actually requests for comments - someone is requesting others to comment. But here what someone is doing it making a title change proposal. In fact, "Proposed title change" might even be better. While technically what we're doing is a "move", conceptually we're just changing the title of an article when we do that. In any case, making it clearer than these initiatives are proposals would be an improvement, I think. --В²C ☎ 23:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, we are also changing the URL, that is moving the content to a new web page, so semantically "move" is correct. oknazevad (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no need. Works fine as is. Would require us to change nomenclature as well, which is a negative. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see too many of these treated as requests rather than proposals. Sometimes the proposer will not even bother specifying a reason for the move, often leaving only a lame one. I think calling them proposals will lead to, well, better proposals. --В²C ☎ 23:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Meh, as a semi-regular closer here, I've never found RMs wanting for that. If it's a bad proposal, we don't move it. I see no reason to shake this up. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I LOVE Wikipedia! A request to move the Requested moves project page (or maybe we can call it a proposal?). I call them "requests", "debates", "discussions" AND "proposals" when I close RMs. I agree with TonyB. I'm not crazy about turning RMs into PMs. No, let's not. This does not need fixin', no not at all.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Paine Ellsworth: These can't be PMs; PMs, or should I say WP:PM's, are proposed mergers; Since Wikipedia:PM has targeted Wikipedia:Proposed mergers since 2005, retargeting that redirect without breaking edit summaries is probably next to impossible. Steel1943 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for thinking that through, Steel1943! I've worked night jobs most of my life, so "PM" doesn't make me sleepy like it may do with others. I'm more likely to yawn and nod off in the AM. (heh) Good thing they don't want this page renamed to "Better Moniker"!  Paine  03:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Despite a knee jerk initial “no, random disruption”, then, meh, I find I agree. A proposer must actively propose the move, not passively request. This is the culture, and is a good way to work, so lock it in. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Respectfully submit that a "request" is just as "active" an action as a "proposal", perhaps even moreso since one is not just "proposing" but actually "asking" for something, in this case a page move. You should go with your initial instincts, SmokeyJoe!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe it will be plenty good enough to note that accepted synonyms for RM include “Proposed Moves” and “Promposed Renames”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and oppose per this thread. Part of the reason Wikipedia:Proposed mergers doesn't work very well (and came close to being labeled historical) is that it's hard to require someone to make substantive editing changes to the pages involved. There's not a process that's easily followed from one article to another. On the other hand, this is a well-established step-by-step process that involves fulfilling or declining requests. Requests are made by people who can't make moves themselves (they don't have the correct tools, or they already involved in a discussion and have expressed their opinions), and uninvolved editors with technical capabilities take care of them. While this page now functions as a clearinghouse for people who want to participate in move discussions, it has always also acted as a holding pen of requests from people who actively need some sort of technical assistance or minor mediation. Dekimasuよ! 02:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, this may be the most meta discussion in the history of Wikipedia. It's also one that was bad back in 2007, so it may behoove us to look at that discussion for insight as to why the current title is used. And the points made by the other opposers already in this discussion are all accurate. All that said, I see no compelling reason for the amount of systematic disruption this would cause. Like, at all. oknazevad (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I realize that the following may sound silly, but it's my opinion: I cannot support a proposition to move this page to a name which the first letter of the first word does not start with an "R". That, and the shortest shortcut for the venue's new proposed name is "PM"; well, WP:PM redirects to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. That, and this move requires a whole lot of miscellaneous work changing several hard coded incoming links to the venue's current name. And, I can imagine that this move, in one way or another, affects Wbm1058's bot RMCD bot. It may look like a simple move with just a title change on the outside, but in reality it's asking for editors and bot operators to make a substantial amount of changes and edits to accommodate a move that isn't even necessary to improve the functionality of Wikipedia itself. So, since this request is essentially a cosmetic change to the name without any actual benefit to Wikipedia, no thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Steel1943. Also, is it meta that I found this discussion while checking the listings at RM? Yes, yes it is. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, but I generally endorse the idea of a rename, but this one isn't it though for me. Prefer something more direct akin to "Move requests". -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no compelling reason to move this page, per Oknazevad. Nihlus 06:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If moved, Bot code and shortcut will be changed heavily, and I like Requested move name. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose actually, strong oppose: A: current title is consistent. We have RfA, RfC, requested articles, requests for permissions (WP:PERM), and whatnot. B: For a moment, even if we consider that we need to move it to "proposed moves", then the "post move clean-up" would be tremendous like user:Steel1943 suggested above. And he explained only one part. I dont see any reason to hog so many resources of bots, humans, and servers for this move. And in the first place: whats the need to move? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Nope What shortcut will be used then? Seriously. Can't use WP:PM...then WP:RM will be confusing. Lot of other changes for WP:IFITAINTBROKE.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – why change it when it is working just fine? See comment by Usernamekiran. The current title reflects consistency. CookieMonster755✉ 14:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Well, Paine Ellsworth has asked me to reopen this..I don't see the point but neither do I have a great desire/time right now to argue. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Galobtter, because since some support for this page move is apparent, there is no telling what might happen over the full period of the debate. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "If it ain't broke..." The current title is consistent with other project pages and is exactly descriptive of the fundamental process involved.––Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the nominator, who didn't even claim that there is any problem with the current name. There isn't one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would just say Strong oppose—  samee  ^talk 16:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose since the current title is consistent with pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. ToThAc (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a significant cost to participants used to this name, with no real benefit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm usually not shy about changing longstanding habits (see Talk:New York#Requested move 7 July 2017 or Talk:AD 1/Archive 1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years?) but I foresee more disruption than tangible benefits to this name change. — JFG ^talk 08:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a problem with the current name? I don't see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allowing for multiple choices

Determining the community's top choice for the title at Sarah Jane Brown has been challenging for a number of reasons, for years. I'm hoping to propose a multi-choice approach to get this resolved, once and for all. My approach is in draft form right now, and would appreciate some input and suggestions. See Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown/table. Thanks --В²C ☎ 00:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• We already allow this. More so in RMs than in any other community process. Though I find the table format you’ve proposed to be confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we do that. And one other thing that we sometimes do is close an RM disregarding the option that has achieved consensus on the grounds that it wasn't formally included in the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You really shouldn't disregard a consensus option just because it wasn't formally included. WP is WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY, and most closers respect that. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • None of the regular admin closers do this, and I doubt many non-admins would close such a complex RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't see a way anyone could determine what the preferred choice was from that discussion, which is why I withdrew my original "traditional" proposal. As to what I'm proposing being confusing, I have three possible approaches. I think the third (Alternative 2) is simplest: you get to allocate 10 points among the choices any way you want, except you can't assign more than 4 to any one of them. This forces at least three picks (4, 4, 2) and should provide enough granularity to make a most-preferred choice, obvious. But I'm open to suggestions/comments. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
        • That is a terrible method, highly susceptible to chatic results due to clones and irrelevant alternatives. You can sink things you don’t want, it is easily gamed. I will try to re-explain the scoring method later. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC) See Talk:Me_Too_movement#Requested_move_22_January_2018 for a recent attempt (not used, the next edit was the close). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• This is basically a modified form of approval voting. These discussions are not votes, and should not be approached as such.--Aervanath (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The reception for having participants edit a table was less than lukewarm. That's abandoned. Instead, I'm proposing we list the choices and have people express their preferences and reasons accordingly. Details here: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Next step? Better? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• The draft was completed earlier today, the workspace section closed, and a new RM created: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018. Fingers crossed. --В²C ☎ 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My god... we started arguing about the title of that article over 10 years ago... and we are STILL arguing about it? That has to be a record of some sort. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Settling long-unsettled titles is my specialty! I hope this current RM will settle it once and for all. Please weigh in! --В²C ☎ 01:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record and for future reference, what Francis Schonken did there is probably the best way to go. He simply created a separate subsection for each candidate title, so everyone could comment on each candidate separately. It seems to be working and definitely the approach I'll take in future similar situations, once a reasonable list of candidate titles titles has been established. I think the closer will have a reasonable chance at finding consensus without pulling out too much hair. --В²C ☎ 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be working out so far. It probably has the best chance of ending in some sort of consensus. I still don't envy the closer.--Aervanath (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Panel of 3 RM admins needed

I would like to request that three uninvolved admins with plenty of RM experience form a panel to properly close the 12-choice multi-section cluster I helped create at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested_move_8_February_2018. It should be ready to go in a day or so. First three to sign up here "win"? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I think this deserves a panel of three because the debate about this title has been brewing for a decade, many have contributed, the answer is unclear, and it's important we get a well-thought-out and thus hopefully more likely to be respected decision. I think having three people hash it out has a better chance of accomplishing that. --В²C ☎ 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Closers: Determining CONSENSUS rather than "consensus"

If we distinguish finding WP:CONSENSUS and "consensus" as follows:

• Finding WP:CONSENSUS means determining community consensus about the proposal by weighing the arguments in the RM discussion based on how well they are grounded in policy, guidelines, conventions and usage in reliable secondary English sources, including dismissing the pure WP:JDLI ones entirely.
• Finding "consensus" means determining the consensus of the participants by counting raw !votes.

I think it's safe to say that in most RMs it doesn't matter. For example, to randomly pick the first proposal in the Elapsed section right now, we have Talk:Billy_Harrison#Requested_move_22_February_2018, a strong policy-based proposal from Roman Spinner, and four !votes concurring. A typical no-brainer. The "consensus" is clearly in support of the proposal (in fact it's unanimous), and of course all policy-based points favor the proposal too, so it's reasonable to determine that the consensus of the community also favors the move.

Because in most RMs determining "consensus" of the participants and CONSENSUS of the community turns out to be the same, it's easy to conflate the two, and get in the habit of determining "consensus" instead of CONSENSUS. Let's face it, determining "consensus" is much easier and it feels natural. I mean, if, say 7 out of 10 oppose a proposal, how can you find the proposal being favored by the community? Well, you can, and should, if the only three !votes based in policy are the ones supporting it.

Distinguishing finding CONSENSUS and "consensus" is of course especially important in RMs where "consensus" and CONSENSUS are in conflict, which can happen for a variety of reasons, but usually involves WP:JDLI arguments with WP:NPOV totally ignored. Some excellent examples of this phenomenon are six of the seven RMs at Yoghurt that preceded the eighth one in which the proposal to move to Yogurt finally succeeded. In each of those earlier six in which the closer found "no consensus" the opposition was riddled with JDLI arguments which should have been discounted if not dismissed entirely in determining community CONSENSUS. In fact, the closer back in RM #2 (2006) actually did that, but was reverted 2 weeks later by another RM relying on "consensus" of the participants based on counting !votes rather than CONSENSUS of the community based on weighing strength of arguments. That particular dispute was unnecessarily stretched out for eight years thanks to closer after closer being reluctant to determine CONSENSUS overriding the "consensus" of those participating.

A more recent and perhaps more egregious example is the string of dubious closures at Sarah Jane Brown, including the one this week, in which again the closers deferred to the blatant NPOV-violating opposition that incorreclty claims "Sarah Jane Brown" to be WP:NATURALDIS (it's not because of the dearth of usage of SJB in reliable sources) and finds the "wife of Gordon Brown" parenthetic disambiguation to be inappropriate, offensive, etc., an obviously non-neutral stance, but unable to cite anything from reliable sources supporting this view. But these sources are riddled with examples identifying her in exactly those words, or very similar ones. And so the dispute there too remains unresolved, postponed again by a terrible decision based on "consensus" rather than WP:CONSENSUS.

But this isn't about SJB. My goal here is simply to bring this issue to the attention of closers, and to remind us all of what it says at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

In my opinion, that's not quite strong enough, because it suggests both should be given equal consideration. And that may be true in theory, but in practice, I think closers are far too reluctant to override consensus of the participants by consensus of the community "as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", whenever there is a conflict. And that's why we have ongoing unresolved disputes like Sarah Jane Brown.

Thanks, --В²C ☎ 17:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• As I said on my talk page re: this style of argument, just because you interpret community consensus to mean one thing, doesn’t mean you are right. It is the job of RM participants to determine how to best apply the policy to the specifics of a given article. When people make valid arguments interpreting a policy one way, we don’t simply discount them when there is disagreement with the interpretation. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Disputes about policy interpretation are definitely the issue in some RMs. That was not the case in this one. No one was arguing that WP:NATURALDIS should, or even could, be interpreted to support "Sarah Jane Brown"; they just asserted it. The supporters of SJB just ignored that it's supposed to be in common use in reliable sources, and that SJB clearly was not. No one argued that there was policy opposing "wife of..." , much less how to interpret some particular policy to support it. No policy was even cited to support that view (disagree? cite it). This was not a dispute about policy interpretation - this was a dispute about whether to follow policy or to ignore policy and just count raw !votes even if they were contrary to NPOV. --В²C ☎ 19:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I've been on the other side. After consensus was found at Sega Genesis, there was still some unrest about the title, and so I initiated and wrote most of this FAQ to help everyone understand how we go that title and why: Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. Check it out. This helps establish that the title is on firm ground with the community and, I believe, is much better than imposing an artificial moratorium on further proposals. A similar effort was made at Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. In other words, the proper way to build consensus and stable titles is with policy based argument and persuasion. It works. Counting raw !votes only works when the result happens to coincide with WP:CONSENSUS, which, for better or for worse, is most of the time. But in these special cases, a different approach is required.

By the way, here is a list of RMs with currently stable titles that went through a series of failed RMs before finally succeeding in a change to a stable and undisputed title:

• Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben
• San Francisco, California → San Francisco
• Hollywood, California → Hollywood
• La Jolla, San Diego, California → La Jolla
• Cork → Cork (city)
• Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Sega Genesis
• Golden Hill, San Diego, California → Golden Hill, San Diego (and many similar)
• Yoghurt → Yogurt
• Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas
• Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast
• Public house → Pub
• Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
• Kim Davis (county clerk) → Kim Davis

Most of these could have been settled much earlier, sometimes years earlier, had the earlier closers paid more attention to CONSENSUS and policy than to consensus of the participants as indicated by counting raw !votes. --В²C ☎ 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• An alternative reading is that until you let belligerent disgruntled malcontents have they way, they will continue their belligerence. Some of the above moves were mistakes, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Las Vegas, Nevada, they previously had better titles. HRC has resumed publishing as Rodham, and being recognised as HRC[1]. Yogurt was a failure of the community to implement the simple principle of WP:RETAIN from the beginning. The "yogurt principle" is self consistent circular logic that misses the point of how consensus decision making works. The B2C strategies are bullying. He will continue to agitate until his POV wins, and if ever the community gives in, he calls it proof he was right. SJB was never my preferred alternative, I always preferred (nee Macaulay) and (born 1963) to it, but in every SJB RM since RM6, no alternative has ever been agreed to by the community as preferable to SJB. This appears at odds with COMMONNAME policy, which speaks to the COMMONNAME policy being overly strongly written, not accurately describing practice. It does not mean that the community needs to be subjected to endless belligerence until the few titling policy black letter obsessives win. A bullying culture is one in which the biggest get their way, eventually if not easily. A consensus bases community has its discussion, accepts the compromise, and moves on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is also important to remember that NONE of the provisions outlined in WP:Article titles are “black letter” things... they are broad goals that we hope to achieve, but understand may not be. The policy itself notes that choosing the best title may require giving more weight to one goal and less weight to another. WP:AT is probably the single most FLEXIBLE policy we have... intentionally so. there are exceptions to every “rule”. Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The community disagrees with you about a lot of things, including your opinion on Hillary Clinton and Las Vegas. But it's appreciated. I worked my butt off helping the community find consensus on most of these, and I really resent the bullying characterization. People say things that don't make sense to me, and I respond with questions and explanation If you think that's bullying, that explains much. --В²C ☎ 23:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I just went and reviewed the Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request decision certified by Callanecc Mdann52 and Euryalus . I forgot what an excellent job they did of weighing arguments based on how well they were based in policy (something you don't seem to value you very much). Stellar. TonyBallioni, you might want to review it; it exemplifies the depth of analysis and policy consideration I expected in your close. --В²C ☎ 23:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The HRC close was good, that's agreed. I disagree with how the proponents voted. But I accept the process. I think you and a few others should accept that the community has ratified SJB, and let it go forever, pending only significant new information. The recent SJB close couldn't have been closed any other way, barring discretionary word choice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:TonyBallioni#Sarah_Jane_Brown is an example of bullying. Pinging a closer and telling him to go review an allegedly better done job is patronising and bullying. The closers should not have to defend themselves like that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bullying? Unless you think I'm "using superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone)", I don't think that word means what you think it means. Pray tell, what is this "superior strength or influence" you think I have? I sure would like to know! Anyway, HRC->HC was closed with "consensus to move". SJB->? was closed with "no consensus". That's not ratification. --В²C ☎ 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A supermajority supported it. "Ratify" is my word. I think the closers were conservative, I think the discussion shows a rough consensus to not move. The talk page thread quickly became harassment and intimidation, meeting the definition of bullying. It may not be an extreme example, but it meets the definitions. MRV exists to dispute closing decisions. Your pinging of a closer and telling him to go read a better close, that crosses the line, harassment, attempted intimidation, bullying. The end result of such activities will be to discourage future closers from acting. It is not extreme, yet, but I'm calling it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay... Note to self: Smokey thinks encouraging others to learn from exemplary closes is intimidation. (rolleyes) --В²C ☎ 00:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the SJB close was exemplary, and that it is unreasonable to tell the authors (not even the main author) to go learn how to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's no surprise that you find the SJB close to be exemplary, given your low regard for community consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines you often demonstrate, like in your recent opposition to redirecting Second Amendment to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution based on a peculiar use of "systemic bias" that has nothing to do with WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, not to mention your total disregard for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and open disdain ("terrible way") for the widely accepted use of page view counts for determining primary topic. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The last SJB discussion involved a very large number of diverse participants, more in number and diversity than the authorship of your favourite policy and guideline sections. Therefore, the SJB discussion should be taken as representing community consensus. Many arguments were put, and some, such as "The SJB title implies to the reader that SJB is her common name" did not gain much traction. This calls for rewording of the policy, not overriding a well participated discussion due to your reading of the letter of policy. NB. I think I am well positioned to be fair here, that argument did gain traction with me, and the discussion in the end did not align with my first two preferences. (Its the selective reading of PRIMARYTOPIC and looking ONLY at pageviews that is "terrible".) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In broad terms, B2C is correct that RM closers need to take into account the larger consensus, as represented by policies, guidelines, and their own experiences on Wikipedia. The local consensus cannot be allowed to override clearly established community guidelines and policies. However, it is not clear to me that this is the case in any of the RMs mentioned in this discussion. There is room in this encyclopedia for legitimate disagreements about how various policies and guidelines should be interpreted. You are allowed to think that those with opposing views are incorrect, but it is not acceptable to dismiss them out of hand just because they disagree with your interpretation of policy, or how to apply it. The reason for this entire process to exist is to sort out these disagreements. Sometimes we can sort them out, and sometimes we can't. Sometimes the local consensus SHOULD override the larger consensus; there are exceptions to every rule.
• Regarding B2C's behavior, I don't think "bullying" is the correct word. However, bludgeoning and badgering are applicable terms. Also, it may be time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Aervanath (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Born2cycle: I don't like the Hillary Clinton decision. I see that as a mistake, because she clearly uses Rodham, except as her "political" name. But I'm not there agitating about it or losing sleep. The problem is that you won't accept community decisions and keep going until you get your own way; then, if that works, you trumpet it as a "success". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, I appreciate what you'e saying, though it saddens me that you see it that way. It's not about getting my way. I don't even have a way - except to bring titles in line with what the community has decided via policy and guidelines (see my user page, which is dedicated to this theme). When a title is repeatedly challenged and only moved after a number of attempts, and then no more serious attempts are made to move it back, that should tell you something: Now it's finally at a stable title consistent with community consensus. And when nothing essential changed from the attempts that failed to the one that finally succeeded, that should tell you something too: that the basis to move the article existed just the same at the time of the first failed attempt as it did at the final attempt that succeeded... so why didn't we recognize that the first time? What is it about our process that allows these disputes to go on and on without resolution, when the stable title, policies and corresponding arguments were available to us from the beginning? I think it's because participants all too often ignore NPOV and offer JDLI or WIKILAWYERed rationalizations of arguments that at best look like they're based on policy (but aren't really), and closers pay too much attention to consensus of participants and not enough to CONSENSUS of community (weighing arguments based on policy and guidelines). What's your theory? Anyway, as to Hillary Clinton, she's most notable for her political identity, so it makes sense, on WP, to use that name, not to mention that she's much more commonly referenced in reliable sources as HC, not HRC. This is WP:COMMONNAME 101, and it should have been recognized from the outset. --В²C ☎ 03:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not about your way, from your perspective agreed. You have merely adopted as a mission to implement policy, and to do it as objectively as possible. The problem is your subjective interpretation of objective. Also, you don't recognise your own biases. "I don't even have a way" is an asserted absurdity and proof of failure to recognise your own biases. It's easy to see bias in others. The bias you have is a black-letter narrow reading of polices and guidelines. The apparent contradiction between the current reading of WP:COMMONNAME and the article title SJB must cause you pain. Your behavioural problem stems from you need seeing as "bludgeoning" your own hardline dogged commitment to enacting what you think is a good idea. The absolute worst policy to read black-letter style is WP:Consensus, and this obviously causes you problems, as is evident for example in your two contrasting dot points at the head of this thread. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is simply not reducible to black letter statements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don’t fully accept B2C’s idea that there is such a clear cut distinction between “WP:CONSENSUS” and “consensus”... Yes, a closer. should give more weight to policy based arguments, but that does not mean we give no weight at all to simple !votes. Quantity has a quality all its own. And some policy based arguments can actually be misinterpretations of policy (and thus can be given no weight at all). Finding “WP:CONSENSUS” requires taking “consensus” into account. It is an art more than a science, and there is no simple algorithm that can be followed. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• So what you mean is that the closer should interpret the debate in your favour regardless of the weight of arguments or opinion. How about: no.

I want to address "Big Ben" specifically. This was crowbarred through based on the common misnomer, but the article right now is incorrectly titled in that it opens "Big Ben is the nickname for the Great Bell of the clock at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London[1] and is usually extended to refer to both the clock and the clock tower.[2][3] The tower in which Big Ben is located is officially called the Elizabeth Tower; originally just the Clock Tower, it was renamed in 2012 for the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II." The article then goes on to talk mainly about the tower. These are two subjects in a single article, which actually should now be at Elizabeth Tower because the dominant topic is still the tower and the clock, not the bell. The fact that Americans have no idea that the tower and the bell are not one and the same is largely irrelevant, since the sources, especially following the renaming, are absolutely unambiguous in drawing the distinction. The article should be at Elizabeth Tower and Big ben should be a redirect to the section n that article, because that's what redirects are for.

So B2C is inordinately proud of moving something to an objectively incorrect title after years of agitation, and this is somehow supposed to be a point in his favour. It's amusing given his insistence that SJB is not an "official" name, since in this instance whereas we previously had no official name (it was just "the clock tower"), now we absolutely do. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not in my favor; it's in favor of the community's policies. I'm not responsible for how the public and reliable secondary sources conflate the tower and the clock. I didn't invent COMMONNAME policy on WP to reflect such usage, no matter how "wrong" it may be. If you don't like it, then build a consensus to change the policy. But don't blame the messenger. --В²C ☎ 16:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, JzG, curious, I checked the Talk page there to see what the latest RM was. To my surprise it was this month. I was not involved in that latest RM there(how did I miss that?), to move Big Ben to Elizabeth Tower. It was opposed by all participants, unanimously. Why? Because the clock and the tower is most commonly referred to as "Big Ben". Every single participant, either explicitly or implicitly ("for reasons stated above"), cited COMMONNAME in their reasoning. That's in my favor? Only because I happen to agree with the community. To use this case as an example in the list I provided above of something that is "incorrectly titled" now is farcical. Oh, but it's just me "interpreting" policy differently and incorrectly. Yeah, right. Thank you for making my point better than I have. In the past enough editors who favored a subjective assessment of what is "the correct name" for the subject of the article, a position not supported by any policy, and contrary to NPOV, rather than following usage in sources per COMMONNAME, managed to persuade a closer that there was a lack of participant consensus to move to Big Ben (Talk:Big_Ben/Archive_2#Requested_move_1). The situation then was very similar to the Sarah Brown RM discussions: closers swayed by participant "consensus" resting on JDLI arguments, and not weighing arguments properly as based in policy to determine community WP:CONSENSUS. The next RM did result in a move to Big Ben Talk:Big_Ben/Archive_2#Requested_move and it has a great closing explanation from PBS, who determined CONSENSUS rather than "consensus". The relevant policies have not changed significantly since then. The relevant usage in sources has not changed since then. But now we have a title that is clearly supported by policy - so good luck "fixing" that. --В²C ☎ 19:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nice job misrepresenting the lack of unanimity there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You mean the one !vote to split? That's hardly support for the proposal. --В²C ☎ 20:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You mean, my proposal to have the article about Elizabeth Tower be named Elizabeth Tower? That's exactly support for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry! I was not counting the proposer, who is (almost) always presumed to support the proposal. If you count the proposer then unanimous opposition is practically impossible and is essentially meaningless. So what I think is reasonably meant by unanimous opposition, and certainly what I meant, is everyone (but the proposer, of course) opposed it. --В²C ☎ 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Goodness. One post ago, you admitted there was support for my position, and you're already back to the "unanimous" claim. Do you even listen to yourself???? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
          • You made me look up "hardly" - no, I used it correctly. It means "true to an insignificant degree". Saying something is "hardly support" is saying it's not significant support, which means, practically speaking, it's not support, which is what I intended to convey (if my intent is of any interest). But now we're into semantic nitpicking areas. --В²C ☎ 20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The RM was not advertised, and the comments were based on fallacious reasoning. The article is objectively mistitled. The official name of the tower that is the subject of the article is the Elizabeth Tower, and this was widely discussed during the Jubilee. It's quite possible that non-English people may not know it, but even then, that's not a reason for using the wrong name. It's not for Wikipedia to tell the Palace of Westminster that they have the name of their clock tower wrong, and we have redirects that would completely solve the problem of people looking for the wrong thing. Most people name the Berenstain Bears incorrectly. We don't. We follow reliable sources, and in this case, the more reliable, authoritative and current the source is, the more likely it is to get the name of the tower right, because such sources care more for accuracy than our COMMONNAME-obsessives. Where COMMONNAME=WP:WRONGNAME, we should follow reality, not the common error. We do this all the time in areas where large numbers of crappy sources say one thing and smaller numbers of robust sources say another. Thus we don't say that vaccines cause autism, homeopathy works, or the earth is flat. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. The RM was advertised like all RMs: at WP:RM and on the article as well as on the article's talk page. We follow most common usage in all reliable English sources, not just uses in some subjectively selected "most reliable" sources cherry-picked by JzG. You should know that, and respect it. It's sad that you don't. Just like you don't seem to recognize and respect the reason that we don't say vaccines cause autism, homeopathy works, or the earth is flat: because reliable sources don't say that. --В²C ☎ 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, advertised to the tiny cadre of people whose interest is moves, but I have that article on my watchlist and it never showed n my feeds. Point remains: the title is objectively, as in provably and from authoritative sources, wrong. I find it laughable that you, who have repeated RMs in some cases for over a decade until you get the answer you want, should be chiding me for not respecting this one. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there must be a bug in the watchlist notifications then, because any edit to the article or the talk page should have alerted you to that RM. In any case, I'm glad you asserted the current title is "objectively wrong". We should be able to find some common ground here. The assertion that something is objectively wrong (or right) implies an underlying standard by which to determine right or wrong in that context, does it not? So by what standard do you declare that title is "objectively wrong"? I submit the appropriate standards for determining the "objectively right" (or wrong) title for a WP title are WP policies and guidelines... can we agree on that? Now, please identify which of those WP policies and guidelines demonstrate that the title is "objectively wrong". I further contend that WP rules like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL indicate the opposite: the title is objectively right. --В²C ☎ 21:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you hadn't worked it out by now, I care less than nothing for the endless WP:TLA parade you trot out in order to try to force debates your way. The objective fact is that the article is about the tower, and the tower is called the Elizabeth Tower. The name Big Ben correctly applies only to the bell, and what you are doing is insisting that Wikipedia follow common errors rather than objective fact. That is precisely the same approach taken by antivaxers and fans of every kind of quackery, and I have no patience with it. We should defer to objective fact and explain common misconceptions, not the other way around, as is currently the case with this article. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The Self-Driving car analogy

The other day I was listening to a talk about how Google self-driving cars work and someone asked about scenarios not anticipated in the software. The answer was very interesting, and, surprisingly, I think it applies to WP title decision-making. The idea is that they don't anticipate every possible scenario, but instead distill general principles of driving that can be applied effectively in any scenario, including scenarios not yet anticipated. The resistance to making title decision-making algorithmic based on the notion that it can't be algorithmic, though driving in infinitely unpredictable traffic can be, is absurd. We too can distill general principles - call them policies - and apply them objectively to all titles. If we have situations where the polices don't give us a clear-cut answer, then we've identified a problem in our policies. A self-driving car can't suddenly stop in traffic because its algorithms produce a muddled decision. If during testing they encounter such a situation, they address it by fixing the underlying principles. We should be doing the same. --В²C ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible even in principle for a set of policies to anticipate all possible circumstances. Expecting them to is a fallacy, and all the more so on a project in which "ignore all rules where warranted" is itself part of the rule-set. Albeit in a different context, see my essay here, and better still see the article I link to at the end of the essay, here, for more thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Much of the public's skepticism about self-driving cars stems from the belief that "It is impossible even in principle for a set of [driving principles] to anticipate all possible circumstances", and yet self-driving cars must do exactly that. The reason is that that they're not actually doing that. That is, it's not a matter of anticipation of all possible circumstances, but a general preparedness for all kinds of circumstances, including unexpected ones. That's exactly what self-driving car and title determination algorithms have in common. The insistence that this is impossible is just an excuse to not even try. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Luckily self-driving car engineers don't have this mentality. Sadly, all too many WP editors do. --В²C ☎ 18:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

[2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So we should ignore all rules when it allows you to get your way, but follow the rules when it allows you to get your way. And given that your principal activity on Wikipedia is obsessing over articles that have the "wrong" title, we should do it sooner to avoid all the effort you have to put in, right? See m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What? Again, I don't have a way. I understand that titles don't matter much. My interest is in a process that results in titles without conflicts (just like self-driving cars rely on a process that results in reaching destinations without collisions). And I'm not normally a proponent of not following rules, unless it's part of the process to improve a rule, which includes explicitly invoking IAR, and even then usually for policy-based reasons. I address this in my FAQ. User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. This is similar to self-driving car algorithms that are revised after an event during testing where the algorithms required a human driver to take over. Just like the goal in self-driving cars algorithm development is to never (or practically speaking, almost never) encounter a situation where human intervention is required, the goal in title decision-making rules should be to never encounter a situation where an RM is required. --В²C ☎ 20:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"...titles don't matter much." Great. So if the title of that biography about that woman with a very common name (common, as in a name shared with lots of other women, inherently causing traffic accidents amongst those women) doesn't matter very much, why do we need to have so many discussions to decide that title, and need to call in a team of elders to close the discussion? "My interest is in a process that results in titles without conflicts (just like self-driving cars rely on a process that results in reaching destinations without collisions)." We already have such a process. It's called disambiguation. Hatnotes and disambiguation pages, when functioning properly allow readers to avoid collisions. Sarah Brown is such a roundabout. Readers drive around that roundabout until they see the link pointing to their desired article, at which point they leave the roundabout and follow that link. Does it really matter that much what the sign on the roundabout says, as long as the short description accompanying the link "(born 1963), charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown" is sufficiently clear? Is our system perfect? No, it's not, or Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review would always be empty. We could use a few more volunteers to help keep that category cleared, as we haven't yet developed a bot (the wiki version of the self-driving car) to work that category. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say "titles don't matter much", and to stick with the driving analogy of this section, what I mean is it doesn't matter much in the same way that whether we drive on the left or right doesn't matter much. But we have to pick one. That is important. We pick left or right driving for efficiency and to avoid collisions. Similarly, we pick common name, or official name, to avoid RMs. Or at least it should avoid RMs (just as driving on the right helps avoid collisions). Just as left or right driving side doesn't matter, but settling on one or the other never-the-less does, picking common name or official name doesn't matter either, but settling on one or the other never-the-less does. Some of could drive on the left and other on the right, but the result would be inefficient and lots of collisions. We could use official names for some and common names for others, and decide on a case-by-case by who-knows-what criteria, as many seem to favor we do, but the result would be inefficient and lots of RMs, just like driving on both sides of the road would be. If titles ultimately don't matter much, why not just pick one and stick to it? That's ultimately my point here. Why use common name for half or 90% or but official name for the other half or even 1%? Why not just always use the most commonly used name, period? --В²C ☎ 22:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lame analogy: Drive on the left: Sarah Brown. Drive on the right: Brown, Sarah. The name is the same. Only the form that it is rendered is changed. Adding a parenthetical or a middle name changes the form. Both the UK (drive on the left) and America (drive on the right) have roundabouts, which are functionally equivalent. wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. We parked at Sarah Jane Brown. Why can't you stick to it? wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We can't just always use the most commonly used name, because our system requires unique titles, and commonly used names, like "Sarah Brown", are far from unique. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's like saying we picked driving on the left on Oak St, even though we picked driving on the right on all other streets. Why can't you stick to it? Choosing a special rule for Sarah Jane Brown, or rather ignoring the WP:NATURALDIS rule of using commonly used names in reliable sources forms for natural disambiguation, is akin to using a special drive-on-the-left rule for Oak St. It's not even a recognized exception case, like driving on the left is okay on one-way roads is in our analogy, or parenthetic disambiguation is in our titles. There is no "driving on the left is okay on one-way roads" natural disambiguation exception using very rarely used names. Now, if we can determine that we really need a special case here, as there are no other options that are in compliance with the rules, we should update the rules accordingly. But we do have options. There are several parenthetic disambiguations that are perfectly in line with our rules. We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one. And when any one of those options is available, sticking to a title that is clearly unsupported by the rules like "Sarah Jane Brown" is, the closers should be focusing on picking something more in line with those CONSENSUS rules, as well as "consensus". --В²C ☎ 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one. This might be the most arrogant thing I have ever read in regards to a move discussion. The community does not have to do anything in regards to a requested move: the presumption is that it will stay at a stable title: the obligation is on those wanting a move to achieve consensus. There wasn't even consensus a move was needed (and please don't go on the CONSENSUS vs "consensus" distinction: people considered your arguments and made counter arguments. This was also a community-wide RM advertised at CENT and BLPN which means that it had wide input from beyond the normal RM crowd who writes the guidelines, which almost certainly makes it more reflective of actual community consensus on the interpretation of the naming policy in this case than the small crowd who are RM regulars.) The community has consistently rejected a move for half a decade. In the other cases you could argue whether or not it was the specific title that caused people to reject it but this RM had probably every title available, and they still preferred the status quo: per the close, I think that there was a slight consensus to keep the stable title, not necessarily a consensus that it was the best, but a consensus that it would work and that repeated RMs were disruptive. Please drop the stick here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. We're talking about what to name Oak Street, not what side of it we drive on. If someone moved that street to the wrong side, Oak Street (disambiguation), we have rules for getting it back to the correct side. See WP:MALPLACED. I'll remind you that it was your October 2014 edit that changed the simple concept of "natural disambiguation" from "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English" to one commonly used in "reliable sources". You were called out on your concept of "COMMONNAME" back in August 2011. Presumably we have a reliable source for Brown's middle name. This is not a made-up name, and I would hesitate to tell anyone to their face that their middle name was an "obscure" name. If we don't allow middle initials and names for disambiguation, we take too many options off the table. The problem your self-driving article titling bot is having is finding which of (campaigner), (activist), (executive), (spouse), etc. is most commonly used in reliable sources. We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one. What you mean is, you can't get your self-driving car to get out of the roundabout. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058, there aren't any significant rules about naming streets; there are significant rules about article titles, just as there are significant rules about which side of the street to drive on. That's the aspect they have in common that makes that analogy appropriate. That addition of reliable sources is merely a clarification and should go without saying. The key part there is "commonly used in English", which "Sarah Jane Brown" is not, and that's demonstrated by the dearth (though no longer total absence it used to be) of sources that refer to her that way. It's no where near meeting the "commonly used in English" hurdle, but this is not the place to be (re) arguing that RM. --В²C ☎ 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Commonly called in English. Everyone who has a middle name may be commonly called by that middle name, as in common English, especially when necessary to distinguish that person from someone else with identical first and last names. There should be no requirement for inventorying and counting occurrences in reliable sources. That's OK for determining the first choice in title, if there are no conflicts, but this breaks down badly as a disambiguation requirement. How many reliable sources call her Sarah Brown (born 1963)? wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No, plenty of people have middle names for official records or whatnot but are NOT commonly called by that full (including middle) name, and Sarah Brown is one of them. Of course we would not expect to find parenthetic disambiguation like Sarah Brown (born 1963) used in sources, or that would be natural disambiguation too. The whole idea is we use either the most commonly used name for a topic, or, if not available, then an alternative less commonly used (but still commonly used) name, or if not available, then parenthetic disambiguation (which is not expected to be found in sources verbatim, though the description within parentheses should be a way the topic is commonly described in sources). --В²C ☎ 00:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be an interesting exercise to inventory the sources actually used in the article. Just looking at one, Daily Mail says Sarah Brown, wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown. That translates to the parenthetical Sarah Brown (wife of former prime minister Gordon Brown) which we would shorten to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) if her husband did not require disambiguation. But, of course, this runs into the issues of "political correctness" and whether or not the Daily Mail is a RS. LOL. wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm pretty sure most of the people who argued against "Sarah Jane Brown" did so because they went through the brief exercise to determine it was never used, or almost never used, in sources. Further, most people who looked at how she is described in sources, find that it's pretty much how the Daily Mail does; and more reliable sources do the same. I can't speak for those who favored SJB, because I couldn't tell what most of them based their positions on. It seemed like they just assumed oh that's her middle name (or that's her other given name in British parlance, apparently), and so it's reasonable to use it. No basis in policy that I could see. --В²C ☎ 01:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And another RS, The Guardian, calls her Sarah Jane Macaulay. Did she lose her middle name as well as her last when she married? In any event, there's a source using "Jane". wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Some people might take this concept of counting sources to such an extreme as to deny moving her from Macaulay to Brown before it's been demonstrated that a majority of sources have conformed to using her new name. It may take some time before the number of sources using "Brown" surpasses those which have used "Macaulay", you know /sarcasm wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that one reference from almost 20 years ago has been brought up for years - yes, apparently she was known as "Sarah Jane Macaulay" back then, but that's before she became notable (as GB's wife). For whatever reason no sources (except records) ever referred to her as "Sarah Jane Brown", she is simply not called by that name, much less commonly called by that name. I should add that what made this RM particularly complicated and challenging was not only the NATURALDIS issue with SJB, but also the vehement visceral opposition many had to the most logical choice ("wife of" - as you note above). I think this muddied the "consensus" read as well. Many people's opposition to "wife of" was so vehement they didn't care what problems there might be with SJB - in their minds it was clearly preferable to "wife of", and so they never seriously looked any deeper (I'm surmising). I had hoped the multiple choice format of the RM would help us work this out, but it did not work as well as I had hoped. It was just too complicated to have to open a dozen or so separate sections to weigh in on all the choices, and many didn't bother. I get it. If you don't appreciate the issue with SJB, the whole thing is going to seem like a big nuisance. But really, since opposition to "wife of" was not based in policy, it was really a violation of NPOV to oppose it, and I think those !votes should have been discounted accordingly, as well as the support votes for SJB. What would be left as a result of such a weighted analysis of the !votes, I'm not sure, except it wouldn't have been to retain SJB. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: re: no source ever calls her Sarah Jane Brown, see Getty Images: "Portrait of British politician Chancellor of the Exchequer (and future Prime Minister) Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah Jane Brown, as they pose outside their home ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think gettyimages counts as a reliable source. Could be an intern who checked Wikipedia for her name (which is possible and an important reason to not use names of subjects by which they are not commonly referred). In any case even if this one source was the London Times it would still be just one source; no where near meeting the “commonly called” NATURALDIS hurdle. —В²C ☎ 06:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am becoming seriously pissed off with your relentless denialism. Her name is Sarah Jane Brown, that is an objective fact. We have an absolutely authoritative, 100% reliable official source, Companies House. You know this, yet you somehow pretend it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, this whole section isn't even about that particular close (though it is the most recent example I know of the general issue this section is about), but others keep bringing it up. I'm just responding/clarifying. No stick! As I noted before, there is no doubt that most participants there preferred the status quo. Like I keep saying, that's the "consensus". What I'm trying to persuade other closers about, apparently with very little success, is that we could have justifiably ended multi-year disputes like this and all those in the list above if we looked more closely at the arguments relative to their basis in policy, rather than just the preferences, and closed accordingly. This is especially true in large RMs where we are likely to have many participants who are not very familiar with title policy, guidelines and conventions, nor very experienced with title changes. That's how and where they learn about these policies. To continue with the driving analogy, we don't look at beginner driver behavior to decide what the rules should be. As to the undisputed fact that the community has consistently rejected a move for half a decade, that was the argument at many of the RMs in the list above, including at Yoghurt, only there it was eight years, and the move was even more specific (from Yoghurt to Yogurt). But if you go back to any of those other RMs where the community supposedly rejected "Yogurt", you'll see that "consensus" does indicate apparent rejection, but a closer evaluation of the arguments per basis in policy indicates CONSENSUS did favor the move. And, sorry to say, same with your close (and the previous ones at SJB). But look, this is just an argument. You are free to disagree, dismiss, or whatever. It's an issue I've been trying to raise long before this article. Please don't take it personally. --В²C ☎ 00:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, you’re free to disagree?! The gall! B2C’s dellusions are universally disagreed with. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We just have to figure out how to get the community to select one. No, we just have to figure out how to get a small number of people to stop obsessing over moving the article away from a title that is 100% verifiably accurate, unambiguous and where there is no evidence it is considered a problem at all other than by them. B2C, your arrogance is incredible. You're basically saying that the whole of the rest of Wikipedia has to find a solution to a problem that most of them don't consider to be actually a problem, and do so to your personal satisfaction, otherwise you will keep bringing it up again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy-based rationale for Sarah Jane Brown

"...still be just one source; no where near meeting the “commonly called” NATURALDIS hurdle."

This is flat-out wrong. An incorrect interpretation of

Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.

She is commonly called Sarah Jane Brown, albeit not as commonly as Sarah Brown. There is no "failure to pass a hurdle here". Title characteristics (e.g. "naturalness") should be seen as goals, not as rules. Stop insisting that they be seen as rules. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.

Yes, she is less commonly called by her full name, much less commonly than she is called by just her first and last name. Because of this relatively weak case for natural disambiguation, a serious attempt was made to find a parenthetical alternative. Examination of sources leads to looking at Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), or "spouse", for consideration. This has been strongly rejected, for reasons I think you should understand. Similarly, Sarah Brown (born 1963) has also been rejected, though not as strongly. Taking a look at the Sarah Brown (disambiguation) page, the defacto parenthetical that would be acceptable would be Sarah Brown (charity director, wife of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown), but this is weak on the conciseness criterion. Unfortunately, unlike some of the past spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, she has no title like Countess, Duchess, Viscountess, Marchioness, or Baroness which would disambiguate. The British don't use "First Lady"; that role may be filled by Prince Philip. Someone made a pointy edit that bluntly shows why the community is having trouble with solely disambiguating based on some variant of "charity director" or "campaigner". Note that no other Prime Minister's spouse's name has parenthetical disambiguation. Having failed to find an acceptable parenthetical that doesn't seriously impair other criteria, the community has, perhaps reluctantly, fallen back on the natural disambiguation as the best of the less-than-ideal options. Should another woman named Sarah Jane Brown become sufficiently notable to challenge this one for primary topic status, well, we'll wait to deal with that problem until it actually arises. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Day example

For anyone who may be interested, this example from 2009 (Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move) demonstrates what a CONSENSUS overrides "consensus" decision looks like. This one sentence from the close tells it all:

The nays outweigh the yays in number but the arguments in support are based in guideline and those relied on in opposition are in large part outside of guideline; were debunked and yet repeated without change; are based in classic examples of fallacious arguments we even have pages here describing (often in the context of deletion arguments); and most critically, pertinent evidence was provided which was never met by any counter evidence.

I think it's likely that this wise close by Fuhghettaboutit averted multiple repeated attempts to move and its place in the list above. There was one more attempt to move back, in 2016 (Talk:Jerusalem_Day#Requested_move_11_January_2016), but it was shutdown by "consensus" as well as CONSENSUS, which is exactly what I see happening every time CONSENSUS is recognized to trump "consensus" like this. --В²C ☎ 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think we can really compare the Jerusalem Day example and the Sarah Brown example... the JD move hinged on a very simple question: was there a COMMONNAME or not? Once it was determined that there was, everything boiled down to policy based arguments vs non-policy based arguments. It becaame fairly easy to close. In the SB example, however, we had policy based arguments vs competing policy based arguments. For that article, it was determined that there was a COMMONNAME... but we could not use it because it was ambiguous. The endless RM discussions were about what to do next... yet even here, the discussions were policy based... we had to keep revisiting the issue because there were disagreements over how to interpret policy (it essentially boiled down to a disagreement over how to disambiguate - something that the community disagrees on, and which changed from RM discussion to RM discussion, making it very difficult to close). Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed. They can’t be compared. Note that no comparison was made, so I’m not sure why you’re pointing this out. It’s simply an example of an RM decision where the closer found CONSENSUS of the community to be in support even though the “consensus” of the participants opposed. —В²C ☎ 12:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies... since you posted the JD example right after a lot of discussion of the SB example, I thought you were trying to draw a comparison. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous section - comparing complexities and suitability to algorithmic approaches of title decision making and decision making while driving was also not about SB, though SB was raised as an example and discussed. —В²C ☎ 12:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

How to withdraw request?

Is it possible to withdraw a request? 1.If the request was posted and later the requester wants to withdraw the request before anyone has commented? 2.After there has been comments? How is it done -it is just closed before the seven days? Thinker78 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78 If the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed. In this case, the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn". Either someone else can close it if you write that you've withdrawn it or you yourself can close following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Closing_the_requested_move Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Are any guidelines or policies on this? Thinker78 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Who can close requested moves – wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)