Jump to content

Talk:Central Intercollegiate Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2 June 2020

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Rename to Central Intercollegiate Conference. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference → ? – procedural nomination to allow discussion. I have twice reverted bold moves of this page by User:Jweiss11, who may wish to present evidence in favour of the move. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, there is often more than one acceptable way to accomplish a task. Moving the article, as I did, because this is a slam-dunk non-controversial move, and then having a discussion about the categories is one such acceptable way. Alternatively, having a discussion first about the renaming article and then speedy-moving the categories would, as you would like to have it done, also be acceptable, although that delays the associated cleanup of the relevant articles that must link to this article. What doesn't make sense is changing course once one of those two acceptable processes has been initiated. It just wastes everyone's time. What are you doing amounts to bureaucratic obstruction that thwarts the improvement of the encyclopedia. This is not the first time the community has observed you do such a thing. I hope it will be the last. It's time to close this discussion, move the article once again to Central Intercollegiate Conference, and then allow the discussion of the associated categories to proceed as originally scheduled. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11, the last time we had a procedural disagreement, you launched straight into an viciously aggressive personal attack on me. I am pleased to see that this time, you have refrained from that appalling aggression.
However, you have not changed my view that the place to have the discussion about the name of this topic is here at WP:RM, for the simple reason that as you yourself pointed out, all the other renamings stem from this one. Consensus is most effectively upheld when decisions are made in the right place in the right order, and that is all I am asking for.
I assure you that I will continue to ask that proper procedure be upheld, and I am pleased that others in the community can witness that. There are no grounds for closing this RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are being obstinate in your obstruction. I may have to seek remedy to prevent you from thwarting the improvement of the encyclopedia once again. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11: Pardon? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11: 1/ Nonsense; I am not thwarting anything. 2/ Your reply takes the tone of a bullying cop. Please do not address me or any other editor in that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question am I to understand that the only reason the rename was reverted twice was not because anyone was actually opposed to it but just because people didn't talk about it first?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be the argument. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul McDonald, this is all quite simple. If the article is renamed at RM, then the categories can be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. Without an RM, a fill CFD discussion is needed … which effectively becomes a discussion on the article title. If there is going to be a discussion about article titles, then the place to do is at RM … so the way to do this is hold the RM.
So, present the evidence, and see if there are any objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: The evidence is linked in the nomination, is it not? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mdaniels5757, I have presented the evidence now twice and there is no substantive opposition to it. There is only's BrownHairedGirl vacuous procedural obstruction. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: this is simple. The evidence has been presented, and after not less than 7 days the discussion will be closed and consensus weighed. So relax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose immediate closure I'd do it myself but I'm involved in this discussion now and created the article. I propose immediate closure of this discussion under the policy ignore all rules and move the article as well as the related category as Jweiss11 had previously done. It's abundantly clear that that user Jweiss11 was doing the right thing and renamed the article that I sadly named incorrectly when I created it ten years ago. Evidence is provided, the evidence is clear, there is no opposition. The policy WP:TITLE calls for accuracy. Currently Wikipedia:Requested moves has a backlog so going that route would just create unnecessary delay and burden those who volunteer there even more. This entire process was DONE (including categories) four days ago and then was reverted not once but twice. Reverting the correct article title and correct category names to incorrect article title and incorrect category names is disruptive to Wikipedia. I believe that BHG's interpretation of the rules is incorrect--but let's just assume that they are correct. This then would be a shining example of "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's a policy so important it's rooted in The Five Pillars of Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • False premise, @Paul McDonald, This RM discussion does not prevent an improvement. It just delays a proposed change by 7 days, so that others have the opportunity to object, if they want to do so.
      What exactly is the great urgency here that impelled JWeiss ignore WP:BTD WP:BRD and impels you to demand that the normal RM process must be bypassed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question what is WP:BTD? I see nothing there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, that was a typo. I meant WP:BRD. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, okay! I make typos all the time myself. The supplement WP:BRD is optional. The first sentence is "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus." The "When to use" section of that supplement outlines a few specific cases, and none of those were met here. The section "What BRD is not" also has some key points to consider: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."; "BRD is never a reason for reverting"; "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once"; and "BRD is not mandatory." By BHG's own admission, the only reason to revert twice was BRD, but BRD is never a reason to revert. There needs to be something else and nothing else has been provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Both sides have a point here. On the one hand, renaming of conferences has generally been done pursuant to data and following talk page discussion. See, e.g., Talk:Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference#Renaming RMAC/RMFAC ---> RMC. On the other hand, the proposed move from Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (CIAC) to Central Intercollegiate Conference (CIC) appears to be overwhelmingly supported by WP:COMMONNAME. I conducted a search of Kansas newspapers in the Newspapers.com database for the years from 1927 to 1976. That search turned up 39 hits for the former (here) and 1,505 hits for the latter (here). Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all a false binary. There are no special processes for renaming pages relating to particular sets of topics. Just the standard process of bold moves for articles which an editor thinks is uncontroversial, followed a revert if opposed and then an RM discussion as we are having here.
      Evidence in support of the rename, such as that supplied by Cbl62, is important in building consensus. And it's much for useful for everyone to have evidence gathered on the article's talk page than on a CFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm correct, what I hear you saying is that Jweiss' "bold" move was not inappropriate, but that once the move was reverted, our WP:BRD process provides for a discussion to vet the move. While the data strongly supports the move, I see no great harm in letting the BRD process run its course for another five days. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's broadly it, @Cbl62. But with the extra factor that the bold move was an unwise choice, because it then meant that the category moves would have to be discussed (rather than done speedily by WP:C2D) … which led to a CFD which effectively became a proxy RM discussion. All I asked is that the discussion be done as a proper RM.
I don't believe that the original bold move was done with any improper intent, just that when eponymous categories are involved, it creates a procedural mess which is best resolved by having the RM discussion as we are having here. Unfortunately Jweiss11 chose to regard this as some sort of conflict, hence his move-warring and then his anger here. As you say, there's no harm in the RM process running for the full 7 days, so all the talk above of obstruction etc is misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an unnecessary delay. There is good reasoning at WP:SNOW: "editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior." There was no reason to revert once. There was no reason to revert a second time. The conclusion here is obvious and non-controversial as there is no argument against the move. It's not that there is an argument and I just so happen to disagree with it--it's that there is no actual argument. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. if a reason--any reason--were given to not make the change, that would be a completely different issue. And now it's starting to become a conflict, which is exactly what we want to avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3 or 4 supports is a very long way short of WP:SNOW. And whenever the RM is closed, the CFD will run for 7 days, so the urgency is misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "number" to meet WP:SNOW, the measure is "editors are encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior" but your response is to provide more "pointy, bureaucratic behavior" - this is precisely what SNOW and IAR and the 5 pillars are seeking to avoid. Is there any possible outcome other than restoring the changes that Jweiss11 originally completed? If the answer to that is "no" (and I believe that it is) then any further delay or arguments without providing a thread of reason are disruptive. Even for a simple article name change on a low priority stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my reasoning, but both Paulmcdonald and Jweiss11 have chosen not to engage with it, and instead have chosen just to express anger. So I will not be responding further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eagles247 and Cbl62, when you have a moment can you weigh in here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I responded above and support the move. Cbl62 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl, sorry, I missed that. I see now. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per COMMONNAME. I think the case has been clearly made that articles of the time and current editors view CIC as the common version of the name. Springee (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Intercollegiate_Conference&oldid=1200738045"