User talk:Born2cycle

Coherent reply policy If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

Iznik pottery

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

---

An editor has objected to your closure of this move discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Turkish. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check the latest comments at User talk:EdJohnston#Turkish. I consider this to be your closure not mine, so if you want to undo your close and relist, you can do so. If not then don't, but there is a chance somebody may take it to WP:MRV. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please revert your closure as offered. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi - EdJohnston has misread Born2cycle's words. Born2cycle made no such offer. He only offered to revert the closure if a non-involved editor (or EdJohnston himself) thought the closure was an inappropriate closure. You are an involved editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re WP:MRV. Looking at its archives, successful WP:MPV overturns seem all based on either WP:COMMONNAME arguments, or if the subject was controversial, or if the discussion had too short a time period. None of that is applicable here. This article is not on a controversial subject, the discussion had run its course, being already relisted; there was a majority for the rename; the majority cited policy to support their position; the objectors were unable to cite either sources or policy to support the old title; and the new title correctly follows the primary policy for article titles, WP:COMMONNAME. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please revert your close and relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining. My offer stands. If an uninvolved editor think it was a BADNAC, I'll reopen. Needless to say, you are involved. --В²C ☎ 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a WP:BADNAC. Omnedon (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the substance of this one and am uninvolved. I do agree that it looks like a close call between support and oppose, and probably not appropriate for a non-admin closure. I also strongly disagree with B2C that "COMMONNAME" is itself a policy reason. The close is therefore flawed and should be reverted; relist. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who actually thinks WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy should not be editing Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That statement seems needlessly inflammatory. Omnedon (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You think what you have accused Born2cycle of is not? You need to present evidence to back up an accusation of BADNAC. If you think "evidence" is Dicklyon claiming WP:COMMONNAME is not the primary policy on Wikipedia for deciding issues on article titles, then you are very mistaken! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Stating that an editor made an inappropriate close is one thing. Stating that an editor should not be editing is quite another. Let's keep things calm. Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon claimed WP:COMMONNAME is not a policy reason, despite its link leading to a page stating "This page is about the policy for article titles"! All editors need to follow Wikipedia policies. While anyone can (and almost everyone has) at some time, out of ignorance of them or out of misunderstanding, involuntarily break them, but no editor should be consciously ignoring them. Editing here caries with it a requirement to edit according to Wikipedia's policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The history of how B2C has tried to push COMMONNAME to be the primary naming convention, and to demote the other WP:CRITERIA to be irrelevant, is collected at my page User:Dicklyon/Whither Recognizability?#Early September – converting the recognizability section to COMMONNAME and subsequent sections. I think I understand pretty well what COMMONNAME is, but there's no policy that a title needs to be styled per a vote of sources. When B2C does a close based on his interpretation, which he has pushed (against great resistance) for nearly a decade, on an RM discussion that's clearly not achieved consensus, I feel that he is too close to a supervote. Anyway, we'll see if he follows through on his offer to revert it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"History" is the correct word. You are citing there edits made in 2009! This is 2017. If a policy that was formulated in 2009 is still the policy today, this is a strong sign it had been proven to be the correct policy and any issues regarding it are long settled. You need to cite something far more recent than 2009 to indicate there is still a credible ongoing issue that would exclude Born2cycle as being too close to that issue. Where is this "great resistance"? I've gone back as far as archive 50 - that's almost three years - and have seen nothing.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think it was borderline a BADNAC. I think the discussion was more incomplete than "no consensus". I am a little bothered by the article İznik titled so, and would be interested in seeing consistency between İznik-related/derivative articles discussed. I think it more productive for everyone unhappy to wait a few months and if still unhappy to open a new RM with a more comprehensive nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, badnac; B2C has a conflict of interest in pushing COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion, a battle he has waged ferociously for many years, and the discussion was clearly borderline, not consensus, so this was a supervote, essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is the primary title criterion. The policy page is unambiguously clear on it: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above". If you want that policy changed, do it directly by initiating a discussion to get it changed. Until it is changed, you should be abiding by that policy and accept article title changes made based on the policy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not clarifying this earlier... Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me. Anyway, there is nothing precluding anyone from starting a more comprehensive RM as SmokeyJoe suggests, or to go to WP:MR. By the way, common name was in place long before I started contributing to WP: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" [1]. --В²C ☎ 19:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'm involved in that sense. And so are you. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe either one of us can make objective RM decisions. My point, however, is that it is probably challenging for either one of us to be objective about the other, so we should refrain from making such judgements. Somebody objective, relative to ourselves, should decide whether one of us is being objective in a given RM decision, not us. That said, regarding something you said above, it's WP:DIACRITICS, not you or me, that provides guidance on diacritic use in titles: follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)., and I've made zero edits to that page. --В²C ☎ 21:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be disregarding a comment made at User_talk:EdJohnston#Turkish by User:Laurdecl, immediately following your offer to revert. Please do revert. Omnedon (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Laurdecl was involved in the RM discussion I closed (thus obviously not an uninvolved editor), and I addressed that particular comment here: "I'm not against the use of diacritics nor do I consider the close controversial just because those who were opposed are complaining". --В²C ☎ 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how you can claim @Omnedon: request to revert doesn't follow your own stated willingness, to revert, cf. @Dicklyon: @SmokeyJoe: In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, "Uninvolved editor also precludes anyone with a long history of disagreeing with me.". --В²C ☎ 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no history with this subject. I am uninvolved. My view is that the close was inappropriate, and you need to revert it as you offered. You made no such qualification at the time. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• This thread has become unseemly. Take it to WP:MR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: no, sorry Born2cycle just needs encouragement to honor his word as he gave it to EdJohnston. Omnedon was not involved in the discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the first issue is the close, the second is the best title, the person comes third. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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