Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20

RM archive?

Is there a place to archive the moves after you've removed them from the page? Or are they just archived into the page history?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They're just archived in the page history. JPG-GR (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete?

Hi, I'm having trouble telling what about the proposals currently in the "incomplete" section is actually incomplete. For example, the Powerade move?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As of this edit, every incomplete proposal listed is without a link to an area for discussion of the proposal in question. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, once I add the discussion link, do I add them to the "Other proposals" section for today's date, or for the date they were originally posted? For example, I just moved The Wire to the October 30 section, because that's the date it was first posted at RM, and the discussion has been taking place on the article talk page since then, but today is November 4. So should I place it into the November 4 section instead, and let the discussion run an additional five days?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that's a good question and the instructions should be clear on this point one way or the other. Once an incomplete proposal is completed, who moves it back and under what date should it be placed? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, as for who, the answer is always be bold, anyone can do it. I just don't want to complete any more until I know where to properly put them.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I know anyone can do it. I'm just saying that may not be clear to a noob, and so the instructions at the top of the incomplete section should say so, as well as be clear about what date (current or original) it's supposed to go under once it is completed. Also, if the answer is essentially "it depends", then the main factors that affect the decision should be stated. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no set-in-stone answer, but I tend to move it to the current date/time. As most proposals are incomplete because there is no area to discuss, they need the same five days every other proposal gets. Further, I don't feel that any additional instructions need to be added to the Incomplete section. That section is essentially the catch-all for proposals that aren't complete properly, and there are NUMEROUS reasons/ways that happens. WP:RM is not nearly as formal as other areas and I don't see any reason to make it so. JPG-GR (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I added "normally under the earliest date on which all instructions have been completed" guidance that will hopefully help and shouldn't hurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Born2cycle, that's a very concise and well-worded addition. Good job!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the 5 day cycle, and the top first or bottom first is just a guideline to streamline the process - sometimes things get dropped into the wrong date or apparently wrong date and moved, but really it doesn't make a whole hill of beans where things are placed on the page - some moves are simple, some are hard, no matter where they appear. The biggest confusion I have seen is putting moves in the wrong section among the three, nobrainer, nocando, and wtf. Oh those aren't the actual names? Ok uncontroversial, incomplete, and other, which actually means lets discuss this first. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing

I moved some of the backlog into a new subheader, "Discussion ongoing", so that we could tell them apart from the ones that could be closed immediately. That was reverted without comment. I'd like to discuss the advantages/drawbacks of the current arrangement here. What was wrong with the new subheader?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a completely un-needed header that further clutters the page. The backlog at WP:RM has never been a matter of "no one is around to close these, please close them" - it's a matter of "these have gone through a five day discussion period. period." Relisting is good if no one has commented and the closing admin questions whether the move is appropriate or if it needs another pair of eyes. When the discussion is in full form and ongoing, relisting is unnecessary and a whole separate section is unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I won't push it, then. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Move disambiguation page to ambiguous title

Passed

  1. Anne Hathaway (disambiguation)Anne Hathaway —(Discuss)
  2. Yonsei (disambiguation)Yonsei —(Discuss)
  3. Matthew Williams (disambiguation)Matthew Williams —(Discuss)
  4. Harris (disambiguation)Harris —(Discuss)
  5. Ealdgyth (disambiguation)Ealdgyth —(Discuss)
  6. Club Champion AwardWest Coast Eagles Club Champion Award —(Discuss)
  7. MangalMangal (barbecue) and Mangal (disambiguation)Mangal —(Discuss)
  8. Brandon Brooks (disambiguation)Brandon Brooks —(Discuss)
  9. Benjamin Brewster (disambiguation)Benjamin Brewster —(Discuss)
  10. NLF (disambiguation)NLF —(Discuss)
  11. QuébécoisQuébécois (word), Québécois (disambiguation)Québécois —(Discuss)
  12. ConversionConversion (law), and Conversion (disambiguation)Conversion —(Talk:Conversion#Requested_move)
  13. As I Lay Dying (disambiguation)As I Lay Dying —(Discuss)
  14. James Hughes (disambiguation)James Hughes —(Discuss)
  15. BlackbirdCommon Blackbird —(Discuss)

Failed or withdrawn

  1. Harrisburg (disambiguation)Harrisburg —(Discuss)
  2. ElkElk (Cervus canadensis) and Elk (disambiguation)Elk —(Discuss)
  3. GeraniumCranesbill and User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox8Geranium —(Discuss)
  4. Joshua tree (disambiguation)Joshua tree —(Discuss)
  5. Pop musicPop music (genre) —(Talk:Pop music#Requested_move]])
  6. Joshua tree (disambiguation)Joshua Tree —(Discuss)
  7. GazaGaza City —(Discuss)
  8. The CynicsThe Cynics (band) —(Discuss)
  9. KEGAKEGA (Radio Station) —(Discuss)
  10. Tumbleweed (disambiguation)Tumbleweed —(Discuss)
  11. Rosewood (disambiguation)Rosewood —(Discuss)

Pending

  1. Ireland (disambiguation)Ireland —(Discuss) passed

Move an article to ambiguous title

These requested moves assert that there is a primary topic that should occupy the ambiguous title.

Passed

  1. Christian (word)Christian —(Discuss)
  2. "Cowboy" Dan KroffatDan Kroffat -(Discuss)
  3. Barry Lyndon (film)Barry Lyndon —(Discuss)
  4. Shkodër, AlbaniaShkodër —(Discuss)
  5. Fruit Machine (The Ting Tings song)Fruit Machine (song) —(Discuss)
  6. Tepelenë, AlbaniaTepelenë —(Discuss)
  7. River Mole, SurreyRiver Mole —(Discuss)

Failed or withdrawn

  1. Weymouth, DorsetWeymouth —(Discuss)
  2. Country Music TelevisionCMT —(Discuss)
  3. Heavy metal musicHeavy metal —(Discuss)
  4. LaibachLaibach (disambiguation) —(Discuss)
  5. George Berkley (engineer)George Berkley —(Discuss)
  6. National Youth Competition (rugby league)National Youth Competition —(Discuss)
  7. Ergenekon (legendary place)Ergenekon —(Discuss)
  8. ViolinistViolinist (disambiguation) —(Discuss)
  9. Steve Harris (musician)Steve Harris —(Discuss)
  10. Sarah Stewart (cancer researcher)Sarah Stewart —(Discuss)
  11. AttitudeAttitude (disambiguation) and Attitude (psychology)Attitude —(Discuss)
  12. Nathan Brown (Australian rules footballer)Nathan G. Brown —(Discuss)
  13. Adenosine triphosphateATP (Discuss)
  14. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)Hallelujah (song) —(Discuss)
  15. Camp Hansen, OkinawaCamp Hansen —(Discuss)
  16. NisseNisse (disambiguation) —(Discuss)
  17. Albuquerque, New MexicoAlbuquerque —(Discuss)
  18. Joshua Tree (1993 film)Joshua Tree (film) —(Discuss)
  19. Aaron Cook (taekwondo athlete)Aaron Cook —(Discuss)
  20. A Streetcar Named Desire (play)A Streetcar Named Desire —(Discuss)
  21. Wenham, Essex County, MassachusettsWenham, Massachusetts —(Discuss)
  22. Pirs docking compartmentPirs —(Discuss)
  23. Hydrino theoryHydrino —(Discuss)
  24. Richard Wilson (Scottish actor)Richard Wilson (actor) —(Discuss)
  25. Lloyd's of LondonLloyd’s—(Discuss)
  26. Venerable Order of Saint JohnOrder of St. John —(Discuss)
  27. Viva la Vida or Death and All His FriendsViva la Vida —(Discuss)

Pending

  1. Conscience clause (medical)Conscience clause —(Discuss)

Comments

My personal view is that in most cases a page having an ambiguous title should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is worrying that you moved Weymouth to Weymouth, Dorset without discussion, and it now appears that it cannot be moved back without establishing consensus in a Requested Move in the opposite direction, which of course has at least one oppose. The worrying aspect is that making the move without discussion has reversed the burden of consensus.
On the general principle, your personal view differs from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NC:CITY. Thus any moves based on this personal view are likely to be controversial, and ought to be discussed first. Kanguole (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says if there is a primary topic then either the primary topic should occupy the ambiguous title or the ambiguous title should be a redirect to the primary topic. So the first question is this: is there a primary topic? If yes, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC still does not say the primary topic alone should occupy the ambiguous title. The redirect option facilitates disambiguating pages with incoming links. For some reason people keep trying to move the redirect target over the redirect, however, so I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should (and eventually will) recommend that the disambiguation page occupy the ambiguous title. --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since the purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to describe situations where the ambiguous title should take users to one of the articles, your preferred position is equivalent to abolishing it. Whether that is a good idea or not, it hasn't happened yet, and does not seem to be universally accepted. Therefore any moves made on that basis are potentially controversial, and according to this page potentially controversial moves ought to be discussed first. Wouldn't you agree? Kanguole (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No. That is tantamount to Instruction creep, and I am mindful of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY (policy) and Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep (essay). --Una Smith (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Una, sorry, this has nothing to do with instruction creep. Kanguole is simply explaining the status quo and the common interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Your personal view seems to be that it the "primary topic" is irrelevant, and that a disambig page should always sit in the primary place. This is an interesting idea, and it might save effort and make for clearer policy. BUT it is different from current practice and current policy, hence potentially controversial. In this case, it doesn't hurt to ask for feedback before doing a move. Sam5 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm. How did "in most cases" (my view, above) become "always"? --Una Smith (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! Sam5 (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote above: "I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should (and eventually will) recommend that the disambiguation page occupy the ambiguous title." Kanguole (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An ANI related to these requested moves is here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is a topic in need of some further discussion (suffice it to say I don't agree with the conclusions Una has drawn) and is likely to get more attention due to the ANI thread, I've reverted the closure of this. I think if it's reclosed a place for further discussion needs to be left. In my view the list posted shows that there have been some bad moves "snuck" through. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Lar's view is prescriptive. The list above is descriptive; it shows what is common practice. A guideline that does not reflect common practice is a prescriptive guideline, not a descriptive one. I can find no discussion of this important difference on Wikipedia except WP:NOTLAW and perhaps this. Lar, reading WP:NOTLAW it would appear that you are wikilawyering. --Una Smith (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The most discussion is on the AN/I page, here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove discussion

Why was my discussion removed in this edit, with no message to me telling me this was happening? That is most unusual and improper. I ask that this not be done again. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This does not answer your question, exactly, but discussion belongs on one of the article talk pages, not on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Una Smith (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Template needs attention?

When I added the {{RM}} template to Talk:Bookworm_Deluxe, and created a "Requested move" section, I decided to use the useful-looking facility of copying the stuff to add to the RM page from what appeared in the banner. But it didn't work (see here), and I had to tweak it to get the "(Discuss)" link to work. Could someone have a look and see whether I got it wrong or whether the template needs attention? Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you meant {{move}}, I have fixed the problem. JPG-GR (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Step 1

Is the "top of the talk page" the best place to announce a Requested move? Since discussions normally take place on those same talk pages; On Talk:Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row, a couple of editors complained about how hidden-away the discussion seemed.
I request that the rule/recommendation for the template be changed to the top of the article page. This would correspond to the various cleanup templates, which can freely appear on article pages. Also, a name change is an important change, and I think the discussion needs to be as visible as possible for a consensus to be completely credible. Any thoughts?
Responsible? (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The top of the talk page is highly visible. I see no reason to post such a thing on the main article page. JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
But how many people actually LOOK at talk pages in the first place? I would guess a small fraction of those who look at article pages. I think the suggested change would be a good idea. - fchd (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Not coming down on either side for now, but we do put {{merge}} tags at the top of the article, not the talk page. An article rename is somewhat akin to a merge.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the current proposed move template is far too large for use on the article page, and some parts, like the instructions for posting the request here do not belong on the article. If it is decided that a notice is required for the article itself, a smaller version, similar to the merge template would be necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right on the mark with the size concern. I wonder if the proposer would be willing to mock up a template that wouldn't be obtrusive for the article itself?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of this proposal, and I also think that merge tags should be on talk pages. Having said this, at least move tags would be removed within 5 days, whereas merge tags can loiter for months. Sam5 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Following Aervanath's suggestion, here's the original template, and one of a more sensible length. Though clearly not sensible enough.

Feel free to re-edit. Could both ever be acceptable simultaneously? I guessed that "maintenance" and an explanation of consensus were the least necessary parts. The wording would've been even shorter if discussions didn't just "usually" take place on talk pages. Responsible? (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring my opinion on this proposal, you can't very well use the talk page message box template for your proposed template. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is redundant. I have just discovered that we already have Template:Disputed title for this purpose.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Good find. I don't think I've ever seen it used. I wouldn't want to really encourage its use either, except in very rare cases where it's appropriate to bring the title dispute to the attention of all visitors to the article. Maybe we should mention it somewhere in the instructions on WP:RM? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with a non-neutrally worded notice about a requested move

How does one deal with or notify people about a non-neutrally worded notice of a requested move? Does a note on the relevant RM section for the closing editor suffice?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The entries here are inherently going to be non-neutral, because they represent the viewpoint of the editor who sees a need for the move. All you need to do is state your opposing viewpoint on the talk page section. Is there a specific entry that concerns you? Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the actual requested move, but to a notice that is posted to a different board which tells people of the requested move and invites people to go to the discussion where the proposal has been made and voice an opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
So, say I was to propose moving a hypothetical article "x" to "y". I would also post a message on the related Wikiproject, and it would be that message that's non-neutral? Am I understanding your question properly? If that's the case, it would likely be a violation of WP:CANVASS, which requires postings like that to be neutral. I'd suggest, per the instructions on WP:CANVASS, to ask the editor to fix the notices so that they're more neutral. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Japanese capture of Burma

Reason: Improper use of the word capture. Countries are conquered, objects are captured. Should be "Japanese conquest of Burma". Dapi89 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the correct page for your request. Moves are requested on WP:Requested moves. This is the discussion page for that page. Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral/bold moves

If an article is at name A for a long time (years), and then is suddenly moved to name B unilaterally (without discussion and consensus building through the WP:RM process), and then a "move B back to A" proposal is made via WP:RM process, if the result of that proposal's discussion is not a clear consensus, doesn't that indicate there is no consensus for the earlier unilateral move, especially if the voting is 2:1 in favor of the move back to A?

I pose the question in general terms, but of course I have a specific example in mind. Last month, Joshua tree was unilaterally moved (without use of the WP:RM process or even any discussion on the talk page) to Yucca brevifolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yucca_brevifolia&diff=254928608&oldid=251462355

Once this move was noticed, a proposal was made to move the article back to Joshua tree. Discussion lasted a week, and although the voting was 2:1 in favor of moving the article back, the admin decided "no consensus" and is leaving the article at Yucca brevifolia, at least "for now" (while WP:NC (flora) remains in dispute, which could last for years). This seems to me to reward those who circumvent WP:RM and move articles unilaterally without discussion or even notice on the article's talk page, much less going through the WP:RM process. Is this the behavior we want to encourage? I have urged the admin to reconsider the decision, but have not yet heard back. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage#Joshua_Tree. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Surveys are not voting polls, fortunately. Discussion of the requested move is archived here. --Una Smith (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, surveys are not voting polls, and that is fortunate. How is that relevant here? This question is, why are WP:RM admins rewardingunilateral moves that ignore the WP:RM process and are made without any effort to achieve consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant because we encourage bold editing (which answers Born2cycle's 2nd question). --Una Smith (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Bold editing, which is easy to revert, is of course encouraged. But bold article renaming, which is often not very easy to revert, should not be encouraged. That's what WP:RM is for! So, no, referring to [WP:BOLD]] does not answer my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Article renaming is easy for an admin to revert. But in the interest of admins serving rather than directing editors, WP:RM helps editors direct admins' actions. The discussion re moving the species article from Yucca brevifolia to Joshua tree (a) failed to establish that the species is the primary topic for "Joshua tree" and (b) did establish that the species is a larger group than its members known as Joshua trees. --Una Smith (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I know in this case you happen to favor the current title over Joshua tree, but I'm asking you to try to think about the general case. Yes, it is technically easy for an admin to revert a move, but a reason for a move revert automatically flags a controversy and thus invokes the WP:RM process. I'm just saying that, in general, when that happens, the default position if consensus is not established either way should be to revert the article to where it had been for a long time, and not leave it at the place somebody just happened to move it and over which there is clear controversy. That is, on balance, with all else held equal, the process should favor established status quo, not the last thing. Don't you think?
By the way, the list of things that discussion failed to establish is infinite in length, but consensus that the primary topic of "Joshua tree" is the plant that article is about has been long established, and continues to be supported by the existence of the Joshua tree redirect to that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I began thinking about the general case long before I first started disambiguating links to disambiguation pages, in fact before I created this user account. I have also thought at length about many other, similar cases, and lately I have been tracking them on this talk page, above. Again, the article in question concerns not Joshua trees but rather a species that includes Joshua trees. For this article, the name Joshua tree is simply incorrect, and arguments for an accurate, unambiguous "plain English" name lead to the name Joshua tree species. The nomenclature of such names is undefined and very unstable, in contrast to the nomenclature of the corresponding scientific names, which is defined by international consensus (see International Code of Botanical Nomenclature). Given a choice between Joshua tree species and Yucca brevifolia, of course I prefer Yucca brevifolia. --Una Smith (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to continue talking about the merits of that particular move, please take it to that page. What I'm trying to raise here is the general question. You say you began thinking about it long before. Great. So, what do you think about the general case? What is your answer to my question in the first paragraph of this discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Again: the unilateral move was possible and the editor was bold. That is as it should be. Born2cycle, is it your view that everyone should first ask for permission? --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
In general, no, it is not my view that everyone should first ask for permission. In some contexts, yes. In this particular context -- potentially controversial moves -- yes, everyone should go through WP:RM first. That is exactly what WP:RM is for. Even moves that have been apparently sanctioned by some specific naming convention page. Do you disagree? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was moved to the proper title under the agreed naming convention of the time. Since then the naming convention has been altered (unfortunately) muddying the waters with respect to the proper naming of that article, thus necessitating an interminable debate that found no consensus—precisely the kind of outcome that the original convention was designed to avoid. But you know all this already. What is the purpose of this thread, if not to prolong the drama? Hesperian 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A move inspired by a specialized convention that itself conflicts with (rather than complements) the more general guidelines should not be assumed to be non-controversial. To the contrary.
The purpose of this thread is not about Joshua Tree or even flora - it's about situations in which a move back proposal (after a unilateral move) fails to achieve consensus, but clearly shows that there is no consensus for the previous unilateral move either. Specifically, it's to answer the question in the first paragraph above. Should the admin leave the article at the new location (thus rewarding the unilateral mover for skipping the WP:RM process), or move it back to the original one (where it was before the unilateral move)? The only connection with the Joshua Tree/plant "drama" here is that the Joshua Tree situation is a perfect example of this. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Then read my response above as a direct refutation of your assertion that "the Joshua Tree situation is a perfect example of this."
I think the answer to your more general question can be found at m:The Wrong Version. Hesperian 02:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is still coalescing on this point, but I think I'm going to lean towards disagreeing with Born2cycle. (Disclaimer: I closed the move discussion that sparked this, and have declined to revisit my closure. That specific incident is not under discussion here, though.) Essentially, my logic goes like this: a unilateral move, like any other edit, can be reverted. Una Smith, above, has reminded us of WP:Be bold, one of Wikipedia's earliest and most worshipped guidelines. However, no one seems to have remembered the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Essentially, if you disagree with the move, revert it first, and then invite the original mover to have a discussion on the talk page. The default in any Wikipedia discussion is to leave the status quo as it was when discussion started. If general Wikipedia consensus turns towards "no consensus = reverse original move", then I will start reading move discussions with that in mind (see WP:Consensus can change), but I haven't seen a community consensus for it yet. For example, take WP:Deletion review. If an admin deletes an article under one of the speedy deletion criteria, it can be reviewed at DRV. However, unless the DRV reaches a consensus to undelete, the article will stay deleted, even though the original deletion was unilateral. The same logic applies throughout the community, and I hesitate to apply contrary logic to WP:RM alone.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking clearly about this. The problem with applying the the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle to page moves is that page moves are not as easily reverted as are regular edits. There is a reason there is a WP:RM but not a WP:RE for "requested edits". In fact, the best an editor can often do who would like to revert a unilateral move is to post a request at WP:RM. Perhaps we need a special "speedy move" request for the case when A is moved unilaterally (without going through WP:RM even though the move is potentially controversial) to B (and can't be reverted except by an admin) in which an admin moves B back to A. Then the original unilateral mover will be required to use WP:RM. So, unilateral moves for which there is no objection would continue to be fine, but at least there would be a quick and easy way to have an admin immediately revert them when they turn out to be potentially controversial and so should go through WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Any such system would have to recognise that a title becomes the status quo once it has been in place, unchallenged, for a month or so—you don't get to speedy move it to a title just because it was at that title six months ago. Also such a system should not be used to challenge a move that is clearly bringing a title in line with policy or an uncontroversial convention. Hesperian 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, the principle that Aervanath is talking about here...
Essentially, if you disagree with the move, revert it first, and then invite the original mover to have a discussion on the talk page. The default in any Wikipedia discussion is to leave the status quo as it was when discussion started.
... is that if a given change is anything but totally uncontroversial (no one disagrees), it should be reverted and then the discussion (via WP:RM protocol) begins. I agree that such "speedy reverts" should not apply when the unilateral move in question happened 6 months or more earlier, but if it's only a few weeks, I think that's recent enough. Someone's opinion that the move was in line with policy or guidelines is irrelevant - that's the point about which there is presumably disagreement and needs to be discussed (after the move is reverted). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there may be something you're overlooking. When a move is made, a redirect is left behind at the original title. This redirect only has one edit in its history, for example, look at the current history of the Joshua tree redirect. This move can be reverted by any autoconfirmed editor; see Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect and Help:Moving a page#Undoing a move. There is no admin required for this step. Admin tools are only required in cases where the redirect page has had other edits after the page was moved. So if a controversial move is made, it is perfectly possible to revert it. Does that address your concerns?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know that people often edit the redirect after making the move so that it has more than one edit in the history and prevents anyone from doing exactly what you're talking about. So it addresses my concern, but it doesn't resolve it. I think we need to say something about "bold moves" at WP:RM that covers all this. We don't want to discourage them, but we also want to make it clear that any "bold move" (made without going through WP:RM) is subject to immediate revert if questioned by anyone for any reason.
And I've thought some more about the time issue. I think it's more about how much activity there is on the page itself and the talk page. I mean, if the page is moved and then nothing else happens on that page for 6 months before someone notices, I think the immediate revert rule should still apply (if it's questioned at that point). --Born2cycle (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
My issue with this is that consensus, and its articulation in policy and convention, changes over time. What stays the same is the principle that you may boldly take a unilateral action only if you are sure that you are enacting consensus.
If you move an article to a new title in accordance with a longstanding and uncontroversial convention, then you have behaved appropriately, because you had every reason to believe that you were enacting consensus. If the shit hits the fan a week later, and the convention becomes controversial, and I then "revert" your move, then I have made a move which I know to be controversial, and that is misconduct. Your proposal would seem to be aimed at giving me carte blanche to do so, which is unacceptable.
I certainly support the idea that a move can be reverted on the spot if you disagree with it; but to claim that a move can still be "reverted" a week later, after the geography of the situation has changed, because that which was uncontroversial then has been rendered controversial since, is just silly. The status quo to be respected is whatever the situation was when the dispute began.
Hesperian 03:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Born2cycle, I appreciate your concern that editors could block a move reversion by editing the resulting redirect. You are not the first to think of this. I can't remember the specific case, but there was an editor who was sanctioned by the ArbCom for doing just that. That kind of behavior is condemned by the community, and any behavior like that may be reported to the admins' noticeboard for possible sanctions.
For the general topic, Hesperian and Born2cycle have above given scenarios where it is clearly advisable or inadvisable to revert a move. It is in cases like this were it is better left up to common sense. It is going to be impossible to say how many months or edits an article should go through before the title is considered the "accepted title".
However, looking at the text of the page, I can see that currently the text is biased towards unilateral movers, as it currently says that "if the page has recently been moved in good faith", then the request should be treated as controversial, and filed under "Contested moves", implying that you should not unilaterally revert the original unilateral move. As this goes against WP:BRD, I have altered the text to reflect that editors may revert the move. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves. I think this addresses both Born2cycle's and my concerns, as well as bringing RM in line with general Wikipedia consensus. I am looking forward to the meta-discussion that will entail when someone reverts my bold change and brings it here for discussion. ^-^--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I should note that this does not, in my opinion, change the fact that a "no consensus" close of a discussion results in nothing being done. This only affects what should happen before the discussion is started.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> The new version is probably just as open to abuse as the old, but it is not the job of this page to define watertight criteria for move reverting. Hesperian 05:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, you wrote: "What stays the same is the principle that you may boldly take a unilateral action only if you are sure that you are enacting consensus." I agree, though I would word the principle as follows: "you may boldly take a unilateral action only if you are reasonably sure that you are enacting consensus." In the case of a bold move, per WP:RM, you must be reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy (not merely that there is no controversy prior to the move).

Also, even if one is reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy, if it turns out the consensus is not unanimous then the bold move should be reverted and the discussion may begin. Finally, just because someone does not immediately notice that hour or that day that the bold change has occurred does not establish in and of itself that there is consensus for that change. On obscure pages sometimes even blatant vandalism does not get noticed and reverted for weeks if not months or perhaps even years. If a bold move is not reverted for a few weeks that does not mean there was consensus support for that move at the time.

So, I think the only appropriate reaction to a revert of a bold move, regardless of the reasons stated or how much time has passed, is something akin to, "Oh well, I guess we have to go through WP:RM after all". Is that so bad? What's the downside? One can always avoid the potential of being unilaterally reverted by going through WP:RM in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy" seems to me to be a lot to ask, considering how many subjects tend toward controversy in Wikipedia. How is an editor supposed to know, and how do others distinguish a good-faith move that was not expected to be controversial from an intentional controversial move, except in the edge cases? (If you are saying "be cautious about bold moves", I can see the point.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is "reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy" a lot to ask? The point is that most moves should go through WP:RM precisely because of "how many subjects tend toward controversy in Wikipedia". Except in cases where one is "reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy", a bold move is arguably an attempt to try to slip through a change under the wire, so to speak, such that no one who might object notices. Don't you agree that avoiding WP:RM with bold moves in which one is not "reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy" is behavior that should be discouraged? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You know, the current wording under uncontroversial moves says, "... if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. " [*]. The "if anyone could honestly disagree" standard is essentially equivalent in meaning to "reasonably sure that there is no potential controversy" to which you object. All I'm asking for is clarity on what should happen when a bold move is made, even in good faith, that turns out to be controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
So, again, how is this different in practice from a blanket statement "be cautious about bold moves"?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently closed a move proposal that had many of the same characteristics of this naming issue: the Rutabaga/Swede (root vegetable) move. Two editors had moved the article from the longstanding Rutabaga to Swede (root vegetable) with minimal discussion; another admin moved the page back to the original location during the discussion, which happened to remain in the format "Swede (root vegetable) -> Rutabaga". There was no consensus after several days, and it did not seem that any consensus would emerge after continued discussion, so I closed it as "No consensus", and that the page should remain at Rutabaga.
I generally agree with Aervanath; the WP:BRD cycle is how Wikipedia operates for the most part, and there should be no reason why page moves should be any different. In cases where the recently-created redirect was edited for valid reasons (i.e., updating a double redirect, cut & paste moves, etc.) it might be a good idea to file a move proposal in the dated section in the format of "Old page name -> new page name" and state explicitly in the proposal that the page is currently at the new name, and should be moved back by an admin to the old name, per BRD. That would ensure the discussion is framed in such a manner that conforms to how Wikipedia operates.
In regards to the issue of editing redirects after a move, some relevant information and links to associated arbcom cases can be found here. As noted by Aervanath, editing in such a manner is considered to be disruptive and is therefore prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was wording at WP:RM addressing "bold moves" that effectively say what Parsecboy suggests above -- file a move proposal in the dated section in the format of "Old page name -> new page name" and state explicitly in the proposal that the page is currently at the new name, and should be moved back by an admin to the old name, per BRD. -- that would address my concern. Anyone have a problem with adding something like that to the instructions? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think we would probably need to create a new set of templates for this "bold move revert" situation, because all the current templates assume the current page is the old page. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Born2cycle, with respect to the following scenario—a convention is agreed upon; some time later a page is moved in accordance with that convention; some time later the move is noticed by someone who disagrees with both the move and the convention that justified it; both the move and the convention are challenged—I think the crux of our disagreement lies in our answers to the question was there consensus at the time the page was moved? My answer is there was consensus then but now there is not. Your answer is it turns out there was no consensus then. I think we agree that consensus existed at the moment the convention was endorsed, and consensus did not exist the moment the convention was challenged. At some point between endorsement and challenge, then, consensus absented itself. It is impossible (in the strongest sense of the word) to identify the point at which consensus absented itself. I choose to believe that consensus absented itself after the move; you choose to believe that consensus absented itself before the move. Neither position has any particular merit; neither one of us has any grounds for convincing the other. This is if a tree falls in a forest stuff. So we can move on from all that.

All that remains is the pragmatics of the situation, so here is a pragmatic suggestion:

If a naming dispute arises, moved page(s) may be reverted to the titles that they had at the moment the dispute began. However, you should not revert a move if it was performed before the dispute began. Specifically:
  • If a page move directly causes a dispute, then the move is part of the dispute, and it may be reverted pending discussion. This is permissable even if the move is not noticed for some time;
  • If a page is moved while a broader naming dispute is underway, then the move is part of the dispute, and it may be reverted pending resolution;
  • if a page is moved, and the move does not trigger a dispute, but a dispute later arises from other causes, then the move predates the dispute, and it is inappropriate to revert the move while discussion in underway.

What do you think of that? Hesperian 00:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable set of conditions. For clarification, a situation that would not permit reversion of the original move might be something along the lines of "article 'A' falls under 'naming convention B', but the current title 'A' does not comply with 'B', so it is moved to 'C'. At some later date, dissenters challenge 'B', favoring a naming convention along the lines of 'A'. The move of 'A' to 'C' predates the dispute, and therefore should not be reverted." Hopefully that made sense. Would that be a correct understanding of your third bullet? Parsecboy (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Hesperian 05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, your suggestion sounds good at first, but it misses two points.

First, you should not revert a move if it was performed before the dispute began assumes that a bold move is "okay" and "should not be reverted" simply because there was no actual dispute active at the time of the bold move. This is contrary to the spirit and explicit statements of WP:RM. The wording at WP:RM is all about potentially controversial. WP:RM calls for discussion before a move if the move is potentially controversial. Your first bullet and third bullets say the move should happen and not be reverted even if it turns out to be controversial (thus proving it was potentially controversial and the mover was mistaken in thinking that it wasn't) "pending discussion".

Second, I agree with you when you say "I think the crux of our disagreement lies in our answers to the question was there consensus at the time the page was moved?" I disagree with your characterization of my position on this. You say, "I think we agree that consensus existed at the moment the convention was endorsed". What you're missing is that editors of a group of articles tend to be biased towards conventions that mandate consistency in article naming within their group of interest, often even when such intra-consistency creates inter-inconsistency with articles outside of their group, and contradicts the more general naming policy, guidelines and conventions. So, achieving consensus within such a group, say at a talk page of a specialized naming guideline that addresses a particular article group of interest, does not in and of itself mean general consensus has been achieved. This is why we have WP:RM, a place to announce potentially controversial moves, and to invite editors to provide input with a more objective/general perspective.

For technical reasons, all moves can be placed into one of two categories, those that can be executed without admin assistance, and those that require admin assistance. Further, all moves can also categorized in terms of being potentially controversial. For those moves which require admin assistance, the criteria for whether they are also potentially controversial is clear. I don't see why that criteria should not also apply to those moves that don't require admin assistance, since that distinction is, literally, a technicality. Now, for those moves that require admin assistance, most end up meeting the criteria for being potentially controversial. Certainly, if a move is made to be in compliance with a newly adopted specific naming convention, but that move requires admin assistance, it would go into the potentially controversial section of WP:RM. Trying to place such a move proposal into the uncontroversial moves section would almost certainly cause it be moved to the potentially controversial section.

In a nutshell, if a proposed move can happen to be executed without admin assistance, it should be boldly moved without going through WP:RM only if it would have been placed in the Uncontroversial proposals section if it did need admin assistance. And any move that is made to comply with a newly adopted naming convention certainly falls under the potentially controversial category, especially if there is no discussion on the talk page of the article that is moved, or even a link with notice to the discussion at page where discussion was held (e.g., specialized naming convention talk page). I will follow with a proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


"assumes that a bold move is "okay" and "should not be reverted" simply because there was no actual dispute active at the time of the bold move. This is contrary to the spirit and explicit statements of WP:RM." It most certainly is not. The only situation in which my proposal enjoins you from reverting is when, in the context of a naming dispute, you would be "reverting" a move that was not made in the context of that dispute. This is proper. When a dispute arises, we all have a responsibility to show restraint; to be less bold that we would otherwise be. You are aimed in the opposite direction to that. You are looking for carte blanche to go around "reverting" any moves made at any time under a convention you disagree with. If we approved this, then every time you disputed a convention, you could go on a move-revert rampage while the discussion was playing out. That is grossly improper, and bound to cause a massive bunfight. By all means revert the move that triggered the dispute. By all means revert any moves that are made in the context of the dispute; those moves should not have been made while the dispute was ongoing. But for heaven's sake, show some restraint on the others. Hesperian 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian, I of course agree that once an issue is under dispute, there is a responsibility to show restraint. What you seem to not appreciate is that the responsibility is there sometimes even before a dispute arises. That's why the "Uncontroversial proposals" section is only for those that "that are clearly uncontroversial". That's why the relevant section on WP:RM is called Requesting potentially controversial moves. Potentially controversial moves. That's why the instructions state, "if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". Those are not my words, they are verbatim from the instructions at WP:RM. Just because there is no current dispute about a convention does not mean that there isn't someone who could honestly disagree with a move that is made to comply with that convention. And if someone could honestly disagree, then the move should be treated as controversial. I'm not making this stuff up. If you disagree, then propose changing the rules of WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You just told me that it is improper for me to unilaterally move a page in accordance with a long-established, stable, uncontested convention, but should rather go through WP:RM, if I think there is some tiny smidgen of chance that someone might not like the convention at some unspecified time in the distant future. This is pointless bureaucracy. You're out of touch with community norms on this point, B2c. Hesperian 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is not relevant here. What I told you is not my opinion, but what WP:RM says. If you don't like what it says, please don't take it out on me. And please don't make it personal, as in "you're out of touch...". \
By the way, "Tiny smidgen of chance that someone might not like the convention at some unspecified time in the distant future" is your language, not what WP:RM says. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess we needn't continue this discussion. If I move a page under an established stable uncontested convention, and a month later you challenge the convention, and, in the course of the dispute, move the page to its previous title, and have the cheek to call it a revert, the entire community will affirm that I have acted in good faith in accordance with our norms, whereas you have been a dick; in such circumstances you will find little support or comfort in the fact that WP:RM contains the word potential. Hesperian 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. But at least you will now never be able to feign ignorance about the fact that moving an article from its longstanding most common name location, for no reason other than to comply with a specialized naming convention, especially without any discussion on that article's talk page, can be assumed to run into at least some objection sooner or later, and so should go through WP:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Bollocks. No-one (except you) expects me to be an oracle. I will continue boldly moving pages in accordance with my understanding of consensus and common sense. The community (except you) endorses this approach. The community (except you) will forgive me if I misjudge consensus, or if consensus changes in future. (By the way, I like the way you slipped in the old "most common name" barb there; you're still begging the question on that after all this time.) Hesperian 00:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right. You will continue to be able to feign ignorance about this fact, as well as about the difference between the generally accepted and your twisted meaning of most common name in which an obscure scientific name is considered "more common" than the name normally used by lay people for a given plant. Good luck with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you had said "My opinion is not relevant here." Didn't you just say that? Surely I didn't imagine it. Yet when I point out the explicit criterion used by WP:NC in assessing the most common name, you declare it "twisted", because in your opinion the most common name must be whatever lay people use, even if that violates the explicit criterion laid down in WP:NC. Meh. Goodbye. Hesperian 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. The "my opinion does not matter" comment was about the topic we were discussing at that point, and specifically to what I had said in my previous post, which had nothing to do with my opinion. Why you're applying it here is beyond me, unless of course it's precisely to make another personal attack. But yes, it is my opinion that your twist on the meaning of most common name -- in that you contend that Yucca brevifolia is a more common name for the plant than is Joshua tree -- is unusual. Even scientific publications identify "Joshua tree" as the common name. But now we're way out of scope for this talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy bold move revert section/proposal

For the reasons identified above, I think we need a "Speedy bold move revert" section for requesting speedy reverts of inappropriate bold moves - bold moves that should have gone through WP:RM, but didn't. As long as the challenge to the move is reasonable and merely shows that the move was indeed potentially controversial at the time it was made, and so should have gone through WP:RM in the first place, an admin should fill the request.

The onus to start a discussion should not be on the person requesting the speedy bold move revert. If the move really has the consensus support the bold mover implies it has by making the bold move, then anyone comprising that alleged consensus should make the proper request at WP:RM.

To fill a speedy bold move revert request an admin should make sure the following requirements have been met:

  1. The move in question was done without going through WP:RM.
  2. The stated objection to the move reasonably explains how or why the move was potentially controversial at the time of the move, and so should have originally gone through WP:RM [modified --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)]
  3. The move in question involved moving a page that was stable at its previous name for significant time period (about a year). [added --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)]
  4. Controversy about the name change has been expressed -OR- there has not been significant edit activity (on either the article or article's talk page) by a significant number of different editors since the move. [added --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)]

The purpose of this proposal is to discourage the behavior of avoiding WP:RM when it should be used, and providing a quick remedy when someone engages in inappropriate WP:RM avoidance behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The 4th item I just added in the list above is to preclude the use of this new speedy bold move revert request mechanism whenever there has been significant edit activity from various editors without any disagreement expressed for the move, which would imply that there was consensus for the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but you seem to think that a move is "potentially controversial" even if it was performed under a long-established and undisputed convention, because the mover should have anticipated that the convention might be disputed at some time in the future. In fact, judging by your last sentence, any move that is disputed by anyone is by definition potentially controversial and can be reverted, no matter how long ago the move was made, no matter under what policy or convention. I can't agree with that. Controversial page moves should be kept to a bare minimum during disputes, and you want carte blanche to go all move-happy the moment you dispute a convention. Hesperian 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Would a move "performed under a long-established and undisputed [specialized] convention" that required admin assistance go under "Uncontroversial proposals" or "Other proposals" on WP:RM? If it would go under "Other proposals" then yes, it's "potentially controversial", by definition. There is a reason that few moves go through "Uncontroversial" and that's because erring on the side of assuming "potentially controversial" is encouraged. At any rate, whether a given move qualified as "potentially controversial" at the time and should have gone through WP:RM would be up to the discretion of the admin per this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, there is no need for this proposal. We already have the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and administrator help is not required to revert a move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As Born2cycle has pointed out, this is not the case if the redirect is edited. You and Parsecboy have noted that minor edits to the redirect after a move are considered disruptive, but a much more common case is that the new redirect is immediately turned into a disambiguation page. In the case of uncontroversial moves, this often the appropriate thing to do. The problem occurs when the move is controversial: normal users cannot revert the bold move, leading to the bias that Born2cycle has identified.
Thus something of this sort is needed. However I think the proposal is overly complicated, in requiring an admin to make the delicate judgement of whether a move was potentially controversial at the time it was made. The issue is enabling BRD: making it possible to revert a bold action so that the action can be discussed. Kanguole (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And here is a quintessential and current example (in which case someone interpreted WP:NOTE to mean there is effectively no such thing as a primary topic). No way anyone can revert that move without admin help, and the only formal thing they can really do now is file a regular request at WP:RM, which is what they did. But the request is for a move back to the original name, for which arguably a consensus is needed to succeed, when the burden to show consensus should be on the side favoring the move from the original name. If this example does not illustrate the need for a speedy bold move revert section, I don't know what would. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Another common case is where the target of the redirect is changed, for example to point at a disambiguation page. Again this is often appropriate, but means the move cannot be easily reverted if controversial. Kanguole (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to simplify the proposal per Kanguole's comment, I offer the following modified proposal with simplified requirements.

To fill a speedy bold move revert request an admin should make sure the following requirements have been met:
  1. The bold move in question was done without going through WP:RM.
  2. The bold move in question moved a page that had been stable at its previous name.
  3. The bold move was done relatively recently —OR— there has not been sufficient edit activity on the article and/or talk page since the bold move to imply consensus support for the bold move has been established over time by default.
Any request in the speedy bold move reverts section that fails to meet these requirements should be moved by the admin to the regular "Other proposals" section. Once a bold move has been reverted, the onus is on the supporters of the bold move to submit a regular move proposal at WP:RM.

If no one objects I'll add a new section to WP:RM for these requests and we'll see how it goes. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Speedy reverts of bold moves" would be easier to parse. Kanguole (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I object; and so, apparently, does Aervanath. I suggest that it is a very bad idea to interpret silence as approval when you are presenting a proposal that is substantially the same as one that has been shouted down. Hesperian 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No proposal has been "shouted down". As to Aervanath's earlier objection, it has been shown to have been based on a false assumption. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a test case for this proposal: Tumbleweed. I requested moving Tumbleweed (disambiguation) to Tumbleweed (then a redirect to Salsola). Apparently to thwart me, User:KP Botany made an article at Tumbleweed and started campaigns against me in several forums. I moved the article to Tumbleweed (diaspore) pending closure of the requested move. KP Botany moved the article back to Tumbleweed and tagged Tumbleweed (diaspore) for speedy deletion. Now what would you do? (Please note that I did nothing here requiring an admin to undo.) --Una Smith (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The most discussion is on the AN/I page, here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a test case, since the changes in question could be easily reverted without moving anything, as far as I can understand from all this. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: different standard of review for move reversals

Actually, after thinking about this more thoroughly, I think that I've come farther around to Born2cycle's point of view on this. While in the previous section, I was arguing that a bold move could be just as boldly reverted, this seems unfair to someone who, instead of reverting, files a good-faith Requested Move to revert the move. So, what I'd like some more input on is this general guidance for closers of requested moves:

If a move request has been filed to revert a previous, undiscussed move, then a finding of no consensus should result in the reversal of the original move.

Thoughts?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any statute of limitations on this? While I generally agree with this (and indeed closed a move proposal at Rutabaga last month in exactly this manner), I don't think moves that were conducted 6 months ago and haven't been challenged until today should fall into this category. The move needs to have been relatively recent (days or weeks, not months ago), IMO. Parsecboy (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Changes like this should probably not be retroactive, anyway, I just want to know for the future, for example, discussions like this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you're trying much too hard to set down a rigid set of rules to apply to many different proposals, no two of which are alike. JPG-GR (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested Moves already operates on rigid rules.[1] That is probably necessary given the volume of moves that must be dealt with. However these rules have a flaw: they reward users who avoid discussion. Aervanath's proposal seems to me the smallest change that fixes that flaw. Kanguole (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Bold, revert, Discuss cycle is the proven fix to the problem of rewarding users who avoid discussion. Aervanath's proposal is a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it's really a fix, since it's really more of a bold, discuss, maybe-revert cycle. It still rewards those who avoid discussion, especially those who get away with bold moves that are not noticed. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This would address the key issue of removing the advantage currently given to undiscussed moves. Besides the benefit mentioned by Aervanath, this would also result in fewer moves in the case where there is consensus for the move, which has to be a good thing. Sure, sometimes we'll have the wrong name for a few days, but the main thing is to eliminate the incentive to avoid discussion, and that should eventually result in fewer controversial unilateral moves. The "relatively recent" qualification is also quite reasonable. Kanguole (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against it, I'm just skeptical about how effective it will actually be. I think having a separate section for posting requests for speedy reverts of bold moves is much more likely to be effective. If a trial run of such a section proves it to be unused, too complicated or problematic for some reason, I would probably be among the first to argue for getting rid of it. What's the downside? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is open to blatant abuse. To use the example of the abuse that Born2cycle is seeking to perpetrate: for two years WP:NC (flora) has been stable. For two years, people have been moving articles in good faith, in accordance with that consensus. Now, Born2cycle and a couple of other people has decided they don't like that convention, and have started a shitstorm over it. The reason Born2cycle brought this proposal was in order to give him licence to reverse any page move made under that convention, at any time, simply because he doesn't like the convention, and refuses to accept that there was ever consensus for it. Your proposal would enable that abuse, and is therefore unacceptable.

The key factor you're missing is what makes a move a revert, rather than a fresh move that just happens to cancel out a previous move. Reverts are action-oriented: a revert is an action that you take specifically to cancel out an action you disagree with.

  • If a move comes up on your watchlist, or RC, or the logs, or someone's contributions, and you choose to undo that action, that is a revert.
  • If you come across a page and decide you don't like the title, and move it, and have no idea that you have just cancelled out a previous move, that is not a revert.
  • If you come across a page and decide you don't like the title, and decide to move it, but first check the history and discover that the page was previously moved from your preferred title to the current title, and so move it back, that is not a revert, because it wasn't the original move that prompted your secondary move—you were going to move the page anyhow.

As far as I am concerned, this ought to be very simple: If someone moves a page, and you notice that action and disagree with it, go ahead and revert it pending discussion. But if you disagree with a title, and subsequently discover that the title is the result of a unilateral move that you don't agree with, then it's tough luck for you—you don't get a free pass here. Moving it would not be a revert, because you wanted to move it even before you knew that moving it would be moving it back. This is a fresh move, and, since it would be made in the face of obvious opposition from the original mover, a reckless and inappropriate one.

Hesperian 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be addressed by the "relatively recent" qualification suggested by Parsecboy? Kanguole (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really; 6 months is an extraordinarily long time to permit this kind of abuse. If it were much, much shorter, then the recency rule would diminish the potential for abuse, sort of, in a very clumsy way. I remain of the view that you are seeking to write policy for situations that should be covered by common sense and common decency. Hesperian 12:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Parsecboy did not say 6 months. The issue here is moves of your first type for which reverts are not possible and WP:RM is the only recourse available to non-admins. Kanguole (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as it is made clear that this is only for reverts, not for moves you've decided you disagree with post hoc, then I have no problem with it. Hesperian 13:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The 6 months was just an example of a move that should not fall into this system. It should be within days, or at most a week or two for this to apply. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As JPG-GR seems to be saying, maybe this is too much instruction creep. However, as Parsecboy seems to agree with me on this, I guess I should say this: I'm going to start keeping this in mind from now on. There are probably cases that are going to be large exceptions to this rule, so perhaps it's not worth setting in stone, but it's something for me to keep in mind, at least.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal could go a long way towards solving the problem as I see it (which, by the way, has very little to do with plants in particular), depending on how well it is actually followed by move closers. My concern though is that this proposal, as compared to mine, does not follow the spirit of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As proposed here, it is more of a "bold, discuss, revert" cycle. I should add that concerns about the potential of my proposal being abused are unwarranted since an admin has to verify that issue is indeed a bold move that was done without discussion before it is reverted.
As to the statute of limitations issue, I think that time alone is not the only factor to be considered. If, for example, a vandal moves a relatively obscure article without discussion that no one notices, it could be months before it is noticed. Why go through a regular WP:RM process instead of simply reverting the move? On the other hand, the bold move may be only a week old, but if there have been article edits and article discussions on the talk page by a dozen editors, without anyone objecting to the move, I would think a revert at that point without a specific WP:RM discussion would not be appropriate. So time as well as "article activity" should be considered. I would be okay with erring on the side of caution and not immediately reverting if there is any question.
Actually, the two proposals can complement each other. In an obvious bold move situation that was done without discussion (much less WP:RM), an immediate revert would be appropriate. But in any situation where the immediate revert of a bold move is not deemed appropriate pending discussion (for whatever reason, including time), if the result of that discussion is "no consensus" then the original bold move should be reverted.
I still don't understand the objection to adding a Speedy bold move reverts section on a trial basis, just to see how it goes. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
RM advises against boldness, asking that potentially controversial moves not be made unilaterally, but presented for discussion. I imagine that's because instability of names is a greater inconvenience for readers than instability of article contents. Kanguole (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, so there should be a mechanism to quickly reverse boldness (a move without discussion) and put the onus on those in favor of moving an article from its stable name to start the discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Another problem with this proposal is it will probably result in having two protracted discussions when there should/could have been only one had the initial bold move been quickly reverted (the only discussion would be the one that would probably ensue after that). The first one will be about whether the original bold move result should be supported or not, in which many will probably vote in favor of the move back on grounds that the first move was made without discussion, leaving open grounds for having another move request after the initial one is reverted due to lack of consensus. For an example of this likely to play out exactly like that, see here. So really this proposal is not only inconsistent with WP:BRD, but is more of a BDRD -- Bold Move - Discuss - Revert (after no consensus) - Discuss (after proper WP:RM request is submitted) (hence the two discussions). Having two discussions like that is probably not conducive to achieving consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What you are criticizing is not Aervanath's proposal, but a hybrid of that proposal and yours.
In Aervanath's proposal, if an undiscussed move is challenged, there is a single RM discussion, not to decide whether the move should be punished, but to hold the discussion of the move that ought to have taken place in advance. And that discussion should be evaluated exactly as it would have been if it had been held before the move: no consensus means the article stays at/returns to the original name. After that, repeating the discussion would be pointless. Kanguole (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that is the intent of the proposal, but what is seen to happen in practice is that the move back (say B to A) is supported by many for no reason other than the original move (A to B) was made without discussion. If no consensus is reached, or even if there is clear consensus to move the article at B back to A, the door remains open for those who support the original move to B to submit a formal A → B move request at WP:RM, justifiably citing the fact that for many of those supporting the recent B → A move the only cited reason in that "discussion" was because the original move was done without discussion, hence it really wasn't a discussion. I don't know if a second move request like that will be made at the first test case listed below, but let's just say it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I've tentatively listed that test case as a success, but if one of the supporters of the original move makes a formal request at WP:RM, I will update it to be a failure. So perhaps it's more accurate to characterize Aervanath's proposal as: B-D-MR-[D-MR] (Bold move - Discuss - Maybe Revert -- Possibly discuss and then Maybe Revert again). In any case, it's not a simple-and-clean implementation of BRD.
The other thing is that often there is bias against change (favoring status quo, or apparent status quo), so, in general, a discussion about whether to move A → B favors A, while a discussion about moving B → A favors B, even if A was recently moved to B without discussion. So allowing the discussion to be about B → A, rather than reverting per BRD the B → A move and thus forcing the discussion (if any) to be about A → B, is arguably favoring the bold move.
Think of it this way. Say Joe Slick wants to move an article but knows it's controversial. He knows he should go through WP:RM, but he also realizes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and so he has a better chance of achieving consensus to stay at his preferred name (after he boldly moves it there) than he has to achieve consensus to make the move "properly" in the first place. The whole point of BRD is to counter the ability of people to take unfair advantage of the fact that forgiveness is easier to get than is permission, making it pointless to try to do that. Since Aervanath's proposal does not implement BRD, I don't see anything in it that makes it disadvantageous for Joe Slick to try for the bold move anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I have not specifically noted BRD in my "proposal" (which is not really a proposal now, but more a personal statement of intent, since it seems JPG-GR and Parsecboy have already been closing discussions this way), is that BRD is already accepted practice on Wikipedia, so there is no reason to explicitly acknowledge it at every turn. This was the basis of my argument above for rejecting an outright change in wording or practice on WP:RM, and it remains so. This is more of an "advisory opinion" for me and other RM admins to follow in certain cases, because I realized that people were NOT boldly reverting undiscussed moves as a matter of course. If they were, then this discussion would not be necessary. The status quo (as practiced by JPG-GR, Parsecboy, and now me) is basically not to reward overly bold page moves that aren't supported by consensus in the ensuing discussion. There may be other factors. For example, the Joshua tree -> Yucca brevifolia move was complicated by the fact that WP:NC(flora) had become unstable, so it was impossible to come to consensus at that time. As I noted in my close of that discussion, "Once NC(flora) is accepted as a convention, this requested move may be revisited." In that context, I wasn't willing to bother reverting the change, since there would inevitably be a new debate following the eventual resolving of the issues at NC(flora). This is an example of an exception to the "speedy bold move revert" rule.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal as it stands (or "status quo" if you will) is always an exception to the "speedy bold move revert" rule since there is a possibility of no revert, and no possibility of a speedy revert. While BRD is accepted as general practice, it is currently not normal practice with respect to bold moves, and while your proposal is a move in the right direction, it does not bring anything about move practices into compliance with BRD. At best, with your proposal the practices remains BDmR (Bold move, Discuss, maybe Revert), but increases the odds of Revert (from "no move" on lack of consensus, to "move back" on lack of consensus). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As I noted above, in many cases people are not reverting moves because they can't, because the redirect page has been edited immediately after the move, e.g. to expand it into a dab page or to change the target of the redirect (actions that are often reasonable in themselves).
It seems that the situation may have improved, with individual admins rethinking their criteria after the above discussion. Still, I would rather have clarity. The page counsels against making potentially controversial moves without discussion. There should be no advantage in ignoring that, and it should be clear there is no advantage. Otherwise users will be encouraged to try unilateral moves, hoping the revert discussion is closed by the right admin. Kanguole (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to square one

I confess I'm no longer entirely clear on the difference between Born2cycle's and my positions. Let me go through the different cases as I see them, and then others can comment on my assumptions, so that we're arguing from a common starting point.

  • Case A (simple ideal case): An editor follows the procedures at WP:RM, and starts a discussion on the talk page. Steps: Discuss, (maybe) Move (depending on the outcome of the discussion). No consensus results in no move.
  • Case B (Bold-Revert-Discuss model): An editor Boldly moves the page, another editor Reverts the move, resulting in Discussion, which may result in a Move. No consensus results in no move.
  • Case C (Bold-Discuss-Revert model): An editor Boldly moves a page, another editor objects, Discussion ensues, no consensus results in a Reversion.

These are the three models that I can see at work on WP:RM. If you can point out a model I have missed, or point out inadequacies in the three I have listed, please do so, so we can all get on the same page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle wants Case B to apply to cases where non-administrators cannot revert the move. Kanguole (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And of course you have missed the variant of Case C where no consensus results in no move back,[2] which is indeed back to square one. Kanguole (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The differences are evident in the variant of B where a non-admin wants to immediately (speedily) revert a bold move, but can't due to technical reasons. Let's assume the article was stable at "Foo", and then boldly moved to "Bar". At that point Foo is automatically made a redirect to Bar, but let's also assume it is also immediately changed into a dab page, or made to redirect to some other article (reasonable changes which make it impossible for a non-admin to revert the bold move).
In my model the non-admin makes a speedy request to have it reverted back to "Foo", and it is speedily reverted by an admin. At that point someone may or may not make a regular "Other proposals" WP:RM request for the Foo → Bar move. If they do, then there will be discussion, but the onus to start the discussion, create the notices, and submit the argument in favor of the move is on those who wish to move the page to Bar from the stable name at Foo.
In your model, for the same case, all the non-admin can do is make a regular Bar → Foo WP:RM request to have the page moved back. In other words, a variant of case B must be handled like a case C. There is no "speedy revert" (or BRD) for this variant of B in your model. The onus is on the non-admin to not only start the discussion and create the notices, but to make the argument for why the page should be moved back to Foo. Even though it will be moved back if the discussion ends in no consensus (which is a step in the right direction), the side for leaving it at the new name is never-the-less unfairly favored (due to the natural inclination in humans to favor stability and oppose change). Also, a big part of his argument is likely to be "It should be moved back to Foo because it was moved to Bar without discussion", so the discussion is likely to be largely about that rather than the merits of the article being at Foo or Bar, thus paving the way for having a second move request and discussion about that after (if) the article is moved back to Foo.
Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Another way to look at it is that in my model case C can still follow the BRD cycle if the editor who objects to the move submits a speedy revert request instead of starting a discussion. In your model the only option the objecting editor has is BDmR. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet another way to see the difference is to look at the ongoing move request at Talk:Fort Dearborn (Illinois). In my model the requester could have simply submitted a speedy revert request and there would not even have been a discussion - an admin would have simply reverted the move (and anyone support the move would be free to submit a formal WP:RM request). In the current model, even in accordance with what you are proposing, the requester has to start a discussion, make his case, announce the move request, other editors get involved to investigate whether we have a primary topic or not, etc., all efforts that really should be the onus of those who supported the moving the article from its stable name in the first place, and is a waste of time and resources with respect to what my model requires. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a revert?

Above, I wrote

The key factor you're missing is what makes a move a revert, rather than a fresh move that just happens to cancel out a previous move. Reverts are action-oriented: a revert is an action that you take specifically to cancel out an action you disagree with.
  • If a move comes up on your watchlist, or RC, or the logs, or someone's contributions, and you choose to undo that action, that is a revert.
  • If you come across a page and decide you don't like the title, and move it, and have no idea that you have just cancelled out a previous move, that is not a revert.
  • If you come across a page and decide you don't like the title, and decide to move it, but first check the history and discover that the page was previously moved from your preferred title to the current title, and so move it back, that is not a revert, because it wasn't the original move that prompted your secondary move—you were going to move the page anyhow.
As far as I am concerned, this ought to be very simple: If someone moves a page, and you notice that action and disagree with it, go ahead and revert it pending discussion. But if you disagree with a title, and subsequently discover that the title is the result of a unilateral move that you don't agree with, then it's tough luck for you—you don't get a free pass here. Moving it would not be a revert, because you wanted to move it even before you knew that moving it would be moving it back. This is a fresh move, and, since it would be made in the face of obvious opposition from the original mover, a reckless and inappropriate one.

Kanguole has reassured me that what is at issue here is reverts of my first kind, but Born2cycle has stated even higher up that

"if the page is moved and then nothing else happens on that page for 6 months before someone notices, I think the immediate revert rule should still apply"

Clearly you guys have entirely different notions of what a revert is. This is germane. You need to clear it up before you proceed any further with this. For my part, I am strenuously opposed to any model that permits Born2cycle's interpretation, because it will enable people to perform unilateral moves in full knowledge that their move is opposed—so long as they can point to some ancient move and claim that their move is a revert of it, they will have the backing of this page. That is unacceptable. Hesperian 03:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question, and I agree this should be cleared up.
One method to look for vandalism on obscure articles (that was missed because obscure article are often not on anyone's watch lists) is to use WP:RANDOM to do "sanity checks". For example, I just clicked on WP:RANDOM and got Hawaii Business Magazine. Looking at the history of that article I see that the last change was in July of 2008, coincidentally about six months ago. Now, that change does not appear to be a case of vandalism, but, if it were, I would click on the undo link, to, well, revert that edit. Wouldn't that be a revert? What else would you call it? Would it really be incorrect to put "revert vandalism" in the Edit summary?
I honestly don't see why the amount of time that has passed since the original change in question (be it an edit or a move), especially when there has been no, or very little, other edit activity at the given article or its talk page, is relevant to whether, well, a revert (I mean, what else would you call it?) of that change is really a "revert". If that change six months ago was not an edit but a page move, and I moved it back to what it was before that move (or made a request for an admin to do it via WP:RM), that would be a revert, by definition.
Further, my notion of what a revert is is quite consistent with what it says at WP:REVERT:
Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version of its history, as documented in the corresponding tab. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
There is simply no "statute of limitations" stated explicitly, or implied, with respect to what constitutes a "revert" in Wikipedia. A revert is simply any change that restores a previous state, typically involving simply "undoing" the last change, no matter how long ago that change took place or how much time went by before it was noticed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. So long as you are using that definition of a revert, Kanguole's reassurance to me was made in error, and I am implacably opposed to this proposal. It would enable people to claim policy backing for disruptive and abusive unilateral moves for political reasons. You yourself have indicated that you would use it to reverse moves previously made under a stable convention that you have subsequently discovered you don't like. Hesperian 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the whole point - that article movers pay the insurance premium against their potentially controversial moves being reverted, by going through WP:RM and discussion in the first place. That's something everyone should do, unless they're very confident that there will be no objection to their move. And bringing articles in compliance with what one perceives to be a "stable convention" is not necessarily basis for being very confident such moves are not potentially controversially. When in doubt, go through WP:RM. That's the point. --Born2cycle (talk)
That's bullshit, Born2cycle; you're a bigger policy wonk than I had realised if you think that any move ever made without going through RM should be subject to unilateral reversion at any time.
To everyone else: see what you would be enabling with this proposed policy: a rampage of arrogant and disruptive unilateral moves, targetted at undermining a convention Born2cycle doesn't like, but rationalised as enforcement of due process.
Hesperian 03:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit? I hope this is not news to anyone, but every change in Wikipedia is subject to unilateral reversion at any time, except those changes that happen to be moves that cannot be reverted without admin assistance, and changes on pages that are locked. And changes that are bold (including moves that did not go through WP:RM) are particularly vulnerable to having a revert be supported by consensus. That's not my opinion, that's just a fundamental fact about how Wikipedia works. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle, I'd just like to clarify that reverts of page moves that have been made as the result of a Requested move discussion or an RfC are not permissible, even if they may be possible. I don't think you're advocating this, though, I just wanted to make it clear for other editors.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If Born2cycle's chosen test cases are representative, this proposal clearly involves massive instruction creep. In effect every discussion to move a page, no matter how trivial, would have to go through WP:RM purely as a defensive measure. No thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not so. At the Talk:Roma people discussion I've been trying to find out for days whether anyone would object to moving Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (Romani subgroup). No one objected. Does that mean there is consensus? Not necessarily. The only way to find out is to go ahead and move it, which I did. Now there are some objections, but they are "soft" ("you moved it without establishing consensus first" -- well, duh, that's what a bold move is, and I did try), not substantive. No need to go through WP:RM in this instance, but I'm okay with it being reverted (for a substantive reason) - at least then we'll find out what the objection is. That what the BRD cycle is about. But, if I felt a particular move was very, very important, and I wanted to be as sure as possible I had well established consent for a given move so that it would not be reverted, yeah, I would go through WP:RM. That's as it should be. I just don't see why the formal WP:RM process has to be used just because someone is prevented from reverting a bold move by a technicality. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Two distinct issues, and a concrete proposal

There are two distinct issues here, which have been muddled together from the very first post:

  1. A process for people to request reverts of undiscussed page moves, where only an administrator is able to perform the revert;
  2. The moral authority to perform unilateral page moves under certain circumstances.

I'll die in a ditch before I'll let #2 go ahead, but I have no objection (in principle) to #1: it just has to be done carefully, so as not to carry #2 along with it.

I propose that we largely avoid prescribing conditions for #1. An administrator will have to stick their neck out to perform the move, so we'll leave it up to them to decide whether it is a straightforward revert or not. All it would require is something along the lines of

==Requests for speedy move revert==
This section is for people to request straightforward reverts of undiscussed page moves, in
accordance with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It is intended for use by
non-administrators when the desired revert can only be performed by an administrator.

I would not object to some guidance on what requests are acceptable:

Only straightforward reverts should be requested here. Requests will be declined if the reverts
requested are not straightforward; for example, if the move to be reverted is very old; or if
the move is the result of a flawed discussion that needs to be re-opened. If a speedy revert
request is declined here, you are free to propose a move in the "other proposals" section below.
Do not repost the request here.

Hesperian 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "if the move is the result of a flawed discussion that needs to be re-opened". That seems to suggest that if a discussion does not produce agreement, one could go ahead with a unilateral move and keep the advantage that gives. Kanguole (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, struck. Hesperian
Now "straightforward" is defined in effect as "not very old"; how old is that? --Una Smith (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be up to the administrator to determine how straightforward this is. I know that if it's more than a week or so old, I'm probably going to decline it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This proposal by Hesperian (as modified per Kanguole) is acceptable to me.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Definitely a step in the right direction, quite possibly as far as it needs to go. Good job. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment The addition of the new section is making something simple overly complicated. If you want something revert it, revert it. If you can't, propose it. There is no reason to make WP:RM any more complicated by doing this. JPG-GR (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the convoluted discussion on this talk page does not consensus make. Making a change this size to a page like WP:RM needs a lot more discussion than has happened in this mess that is a talkpage. JPG-GR (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Test cases

This section is for listing moves that are requests to move back an article that was moved without discussion. Each is a test to see whether it is indeed moved back if there is no consensus for the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion started

not moved back: "The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)"
confirm revert: "The result of the proposal was No consensus for either name, leave the article at the original. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)"

After this discussion started

reverted: "The result of the proposal was no consensus. Accordingly, as their was no discussion prior to the move, the article has been moved back to the previous name. JPG-GR (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)"
  • reverted back to stable title at Salamanderfish by non-admin without WP:RM process.
The appropriate page name for this article was in the midst of discussion, and the so-called "revert" was done by Born2cycle. To me, that "revert" looks like disruptive editing. --Una Smith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
What? A change made in accordance with the BRD cycle is not disruptive editing. I explained my reasoning on the appropropriate talk page: "Potentially controversial moves, like this one obviously is, should be handled through the WP:RM process." Such a move does not affect (much less disrupt) ongoing discussion at all, except to move the onus to where it belongs: on those favoring moving the page from its stable name. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a test case for the WP:RM process, is it? Kanguole (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It is, assuming the WP:RM scope includes defining when moves by non-admins are appropriate, a topic that is discussed on the page. I think implicit in both proposals is encouraging reverts by non-admins of controversial moves when they are done without proper discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a good example of a move that was handled badly from the start, and could have degraded into an edit war and mud-slinging match, had not everybody had the good sense to count to ten, refrain from further reverting, and pursue a constructive and amicable discussion... until Born2cycle came in late and, though not a party to the discussion, self-righteously reverted again in the name of due process. I think this sums up the problem here: a complete absense of common sense in Born2cycle's application of the rules. Hesperian 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're not appreciating or ignoring the underlying point of the BRD cycle: established stability is favored over change, and the onus should be on those favoring change to establish and show consensus. Those opposed to the move from the stable name should not have the burden to make their case in order to have the article moved back to the stable name; to the contrary, those who support the move to the new name are the ones who need to argue in favor of that move, and defend against refutations of it. We have yet to see how, in this case, this will all play out. It may very well be that the proponents of the change will choose to go through WP:RM, present a compelling case, and achieve consensus for it. That's as it should be. It may also be that they will decide it's not worth it, and the article will remain at the stable name. Again, as it should. So what's the problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You needn't try to convince me that due process wasn't followed; it wasn't, I agree. And you needn't try to convince me that the situation as you found it was unfair on Nick. It was unfair, I agree; kudos to Nick for settling down to an amicable discussion despite that. But you found the situation under amicable discussion, all parties having put their move button in their holsters; and you pulled yours out. You insisted on imposing due process, at a time when doing so was likely to cause rather than prevent disruption. It seems to me that you see due process as an end in itself, rather than a means. No restraint, no common sense. Hesperian 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hesperian. Furthermore, in this "test case" Born2cycle's action is not in accord with BRD, because it was already several days beyond "bold" and "revert" and well into "discussion". --Una Smith (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, Weymouth is a good example of why this proposal, or a variant of it, is needed. We need to not give first mover advantage... if a move is controversial, the status quo ante should hold. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would a revert have made any difference to the outcome of the discussion on Talk:Weymouth,_Dorset#Requested_move? I doubt that. If it would have made no difference, such a revert would have been no more than an obstacle to progress. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the summary at the start and read it again... the article was not moved back because there was no consensus not to move it back, not because there was consensus for the move itself. It should have been moved back and THEN there should have been a discussion to see if there was consensus FOR the move. There would not have been. You pulled a fast one with that move, and this proposal is to make sure you don't get away with that again. Sorry to be so blunt, but you did. ++Lar: t/c 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Weymouth,_Dorset#Requested_move the summary "no consensus to support move" is a stock phrase. In fact, the poll was unanimous in support of my move. Some editors did not like that I moved the article without asking permission first, but none of them voted to move it back. And the ambiguous base name did have 400 (40%) incorrect incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"no consensus" may be a stock phrase, but it is a completely accurate summary of the discussion. Kanguole (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One principle of Wikipedia is to make correct action easy and wrong action hard. Another is to presume that bold is good. In my experience, bad moves are swiftly and painlessly reversed via WP:RM; for them, an "admin discretion" clause such as Born2cycle proposes is not necessary. Conversely, good moves are forced to be made over again, if anyone objects for any reason, which is not desirable. I think the current scheme is more constructive than Born2cycle's proposal, if only because under the current scheme editors who boldly make bad moves find themselves on the losing side of a WP:RM discussion and may learn something. Being subject to a summary revert without discussion just makes people angry. --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert without discussion (until after the revert) is the essence of BRD. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"editors who boldly make bad moves find themselves on the losing side of a WP:RM discussion and may learn something"... so what have you learned so far, Una? Or are you claiming none of your moves have been bad? ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{db-move}} vs Uncontroversial proposals?

They seem to be two different mechanisms of dealing with the same issue. Shouldn't there be one best recommended way instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncontroversial proposals is probably more useful for editors who are very new or are editing from IP addresses, because they don't have the "move" tool, so they can't perform the move themselves. Db-move is for users who do have the ability to move pages, but there is a page already at the destination with non-trivial history which requires deletion by an admin for the page to be moved. So, for you, you might just want to use db-move, but an IP editor would need to post a request here to get help moving the page, even for minor things.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anything prevent a user who does not have the ability to move pages to use db-move? If not, then why not simply replace the Uncontroversial proposal section with instructions on how to use db-move? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
We could add instructions for how to use db-move, but we'd still have to have the Uncontroversial moves section, because they still wouldn't be able to move the page into place, as most admins will only the delete the page carrying the db-move tag, but won't perform the move themselves.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

{{notmovedmalformed}}

Just a reminder that when removing a stale "incomplete" request, you should go to the talk page and remove the {{move}} tag. {{subst:nmm}} will put this message on the talk page:

Consensus could not be determined in this requested move because the proper procedure for listing was not followed. If there is still a desire for the page to be moved, please request a move again using the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. ~~~~

The template will automatically append your signature.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving or renaming articles based on poll results


soulscanner and Aervanath are in disagreement about requested page moves when there are no compelling or clear arguments for or against moving a page. Both are currently engaged in a civil dispute on Aervanath's talk page, which arose out of Aervanath's closure of this requested move. Both agree that this is a policy and guideline matter, not a content dispute and both have agreed to keep it as such when bringing it here. Since the discussion page dialogue involves other topics as well, the positions on this topic are summarized here.


  • Aervanath maintains that in such cases, the process defaults to a poll, as a clear majority in the poll can represent consensus (note that this is much stronger than a simple majority).
  • soulscanner maintains that in such cases, it defaults to the existing stable name, and that this represents consensus.

Soulscanner points primarily to naming conventions for controversial names, which are explicit, stating that longstanding stable articles should remain as they are if there is no good reason to move them, especially when there is no other basis for a decision.

There are also warnings on various pages explicitly stating that voting does not determine consensus (see Polling is not a substitute for discussion;Wikipedia is not a democracy).

The longstanding consensus is not based on unanimity or votes, but is determined by article stability; this does not obstruct consensus, but creates it. This is based on the fact that a longstanding lack of challenge to a stable situation (the existing article title) itself represents consensus (i.e. "silence implies consent"). A majority vote alone cannot replace that. (see Consensus:"silence implies consent"; Silence and Consensus; Consensus is not hypothetical)


Aervanath claims that these guidelines are not meant to obstruct consensus: a consensus decision does not require unanimity. In the absence of overridingly strong policy-based arguments on either side, the existence of a clear majority is a perfectly acceptable way to judge consensus. Otherwise, one voter could tie up and obstruct consensus in the face of 100. It has been my experience that, in practice, evaluations of consensus by closers of such discussions as deletion debates and page moves rely heavily on an apparent majority. The most obvious cases of this are requests for adminship and the arbitration committee elections, where a poll is explicitly part of the determination of consensus.

I do not believe that this in any way contravenes the spirit of any of the policies cited by soulscanner above.

I also note that, while silence implies consensus, this does not mean that a stable article title is automatically the consensus version, as consensus can change. If there is a lack of outstanding policy-based arguments, then there is no reason to tie an article to a particular name simply because a minority of editors object to a change in the status quo.

See also the guideline WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which, while discouraging voting, does not forbid it, and allows it as a consensus-building tool, and the essay WP:Voting is not evil, its counterpart.

That is the dialogue so far. Please be fair and allow Aervanath time to verify my representation of his/her arguments and respond to the final argument and add commentary below. In keeping with my arguments, I'll tag the comments section appropriately :-). --soulscanner (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've padded out my arguments. We can get this thing moving now.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary


  • For the related discussion on Aervanath's talk page, see here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks; there's a link in the intro above, but this initial dialog is important enough to repeat. There are other issues discussed at the page that are separate from this issue. Somewhere in there, both Aervanath and I have agreed that in the interest of keeping the dialog focussed, we should all consider sticking to discussing guidelines and principles and avoid discussing particular cases and decisions. I'll ask all editors and admins to keep article content out of the discussion, even though we may all may have particular cases in mind. It's helped keep the discussion civil and focussed so far. I can see by the recent dialog above, that this issue has come up often recently. Let's agree to confine any content-related issues in the articles to the articles in question. --soulscanner (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should people not know how this arose? Aervanath closed a move request I had made. You were opposed to the move, and appear now to be contesting the decision. The facts suggested in your outline above may not in fact be applicable to the original case. Nonetheless, in the interest of transparency, I think it should be made clear here that you are a personally interested party, whereas Aervanath was originally acting in a neutral capacity. Joeldl (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please, there is no reason to make this personal. We have both simply agreed that our dispute is a question of policy and guidelines, not content, and that this should be the focus of the discussion here; it is certainly not a personal dispute. No one is saying that others cannot examine the origin of the dispute. If anyone wishes to discuss content, they may do that at the relevant page.If you wish to make a point about the relevant policy and guidelines, your input is welcome. --soulscanner (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I also have agreed that this is purely a policy-based dispute. However, for those who want to read up on the original source of the controversy, it's here: Talk:Québécois_(word)#Requested_move. (And I have added a link to it in the above intro.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay. But I think it's important that this not be construed as necessarily being applicable to the case of Québécois (word). The formulation of the policy dispute resulted from discussions including a party on one side of the original move debate, but not involving any on the other side. This would not be a fair procedure for "appealing" a decision. Joeldl (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from participating in this RfC, though.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be taken for granted that the hypothetical facts presented here are actually applicable to the debate over Québécois (word). Joeldl (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A determination of that would have to wait for the outcome of this RfC. If Wikipedia consensus is clearly against me in this RfC, then I will ask one of the other RM admins (if not two) to re-evaluate that discussion in light of the RfC.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
All right, but there are few move debates in which no "clear" arguments are presented on either side. I don't know how editors are going to interpret that. Joeldl (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it would be perverse to avoid a move/rename due to "stability" if there is a clear consensus for the move/rename. That a page title is stable is very weak evidence of a consensus for that particular title. Editors may have only a slight preference one way or another, and thus not feel it necessary to click the "move" button; or the move could be complicated and thus not performable by a non-admin; or the editor may simply prefer to discuss rather than move the page without discussion. Any one of those scenarios could cause "stability" to not be a viable means of determining consensus. Powers T 13:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As usual, the closer should evaluate the debate and rationales to see if there's is a consensus for an action. If there is and it is not against policy, then the wisdom of the consensus should prevail. A simple count of !votes is unreasonable as is rigidly sticking to rules/guidelines despite clear consensus. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are no strong policy arguments on either side (which seems to be the case being presented), then the preference endorsed by a substantial majority should generally be followed. Stability is accomplished through our supermajority expectations, but beyond that, the pursuit of stability is not a reason to disregard an clear consensus. Dragons flight (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really know how to reconcile Wikipedia's seeming distaste for voting on one hand and operation by "consensus" on the other. These seem contradictory to me. Perhaps the belief that these are reconcilable is predicated on the idea that through discussion, editors with a genuine desire to reach a solution will work things out and eventually settle on a compromise. That may often be the case, but it is also frequently the case that editors cannot agree. In that case, "evaluation of the strength of the arguments" seems to me to be doublespeak for the closer simply substituting their own judgment for that of the editors. "Operation by consensus" then becomes little more than a self-adulatory pretence on the part of Wikipedia. Other than in cases where it appears that editors for the majority have misunderstood relevant policies in significant ways, or appear to be acting illegitimately in some way, I don't see much justification for this. A fortiori, when the closer cannot determine for themselves whose arguments are stronger, it is of course best to respect the consensus opinion of editors. Also, like Powers, I find it hard to imagine a workable system in which silence is considered a stronger indication of consensus than editors actually making their opinions known at a later time. Joeldl (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several intersecting problems complicating this rename consensus decision:
1. However polite in this case, this is at root a nationalist debate, one of Wikipedia's most intractable problems. Since nationalists as groups do not share adequate consensus reality of word meanings, a contentious naming question is typically undecidable, or at least it's unenforceable by intellectual discussion alone. Nationalists don't give up or give in, but historically they have to accept the force exertable by a clear majority. A clear majority exists in this case, therefore it is the historically appropriate deciding factor.
2. By misusing the Requested Moves process, and other 'absentee-owner' means to derail regular editors' consensus, a few disambiguation guiderule editors, who disagree among themselves, are attempting to force article editors everywhere to conform to default disambiguation guiderule renames that an article's regular editors have determined as not in the article's best interests. The path of least conflict (such as to avoid slow edit warring due to an ambiguous title) is likely to be a better choice than a default guiderule. Rename guiderules as a default are useful, but they should not be misused to preempt a general RfC, or any other rename properly decided case-by-case by editors who deal with these articles on a regular basis.
3. Whether to place a disambiguation page or a primary topic at a given word is often impossible to decide by intellect, and the disambiguation editors' demand for one-rule-fits-all-cases just makes things worse. The best thing to do in such cases may be to combine disambiguation and primary-topic pages, perhaps using a technical solution such as a two column format. Milo 08:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have quite an incorrect view of who the protagonists of the debate were in political terms, and of the relation of the debate to Canadian and Quebec politics. As far as I can tell, only one editor was a Quebec nationalist; most were English Canadian (not that there's no such thing as English Canadian nationalism, but this probably isn't what you had in mind). Both of the editors in the minority were English Canadian, and - this is a guess based on talk page discussions - probably more critical of Quebec nationalists than were those of the majority.
I originally requested the move because I thought it was best for the page in question and for pages linking to it. I did not have any agenda relating to page naming policy - I have rarely if ever participated in that kind of discussion. Also, in this case, most of the article's past regular editors participated in the requested move. I don't think this was a case of an absentee owner. Joeldl (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"who the protagonists of the debate were in political terms" It doesn't matter who was involved, nor why, nor most other details. Nationalist debates in general are unencyclopedic attempts to Right Great Wrongs, so cut the Gordian Knot: Algorithm: identify nationalist/ethnic debate --> count clear majority --> decide consensus with the majority --> move on. Cases where a clear majority can't be identified are more problematic, but that's not the case here.
I combined the overlapping disambiguation issues from other cases to try to "avoid discussing particular cases and decisions" per soulscanner (20:27). In the Q-case, the technical issues of renaming-for-disambiguation (disambiguation page vs. primary topic) are clouding the more obvious issues of a nationalist disambiguation dispute (Q-this vs. Q-that).
"absentee owner" Mostly in other cases, there are a few disambiguation editors who in my view are misusing WP:RM and other means to throw their weight around encyclopedia-wide. They are trying to overrule regular article consensus with three central disambiguation naming methods (keyword at primary topic vs. keyword redirected to parenthesized keyword topic vs. keyword at disambiguation page), all of which are inferior in specific cases, which should be locally consensed by regular editors. Milo 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Usually if a page is up for a WP:RM this are naming convention considerations, and the page should be closed by a disinterested administrator who has a knowledge of the naming conventions. (by disinterested I mean one who has not actively involved in the debate not someone who is uninterested). Usually this leaves the closing administrator with a lot of discretion because if there are few opinions expressed or there is a split in opinions, the closing administrators closing decision can be seen as an opinion that tips the balance. Traditionally on this page, if naming conventions do not dictate the outcome, the proportion for majority voting has been 60% threshold to from a "consensus" because it works well for the small samples that most WP:RM debates entail (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/stats 1-10 October and /Archive 5#Stats).
  • Preposal not votes -- 100% -- move.
  • Proposal and one oppose -- 1/1 -- 50% -- don't move
  • Proposal, one support and one oppose --2/3 -- 66% --move
  • Proposal, two support and one oppose -- 3/4 -- 75% --move.
  • Proposal, two support and two oppose -- 3/5 -- 60% --move.
  • Proposal, one support and three oppose -- 2/5 -- 40% -- no move
(see /Archive 4#consensus).
There are lots of sections in the archives of this page where this is discussed:
See /Archive 4#consensus, /Archive 5#60%, /Archive 5#Approval voting is not consensus building, /Archive 5#consensus building, /Archive 5#Proposed changes, /Archive 5#Stats, /Archive 5#"approval voting", /Archive 6#60%, /Archive_6#Straw polls, /Archive 7#Approval voting, /Archive 7#Rewording of the page intro, /Archive 7#Counting votes, /Archive 7#Voting, /Archive_8#Approval voting, /Archive 10#What is consensus these days?, /Archive 11#Please clarify "consensus", /Archive 11#Request review of "no consensus" decision on English Defense. More recently it seems that consensus on the talk page has moved more and more in the direction of closing administrator's discretion taking the opinions expressed as advisory not dictative. --PBS (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi PBS, thanks for your extensive research on this. I haven't read all the sections you've linked to yet, but I'm sure it'll be helpful for all to read through prior discussions.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that a lack of clear consensus should mean the decision is entirely up to administrator discretion. See my comment below. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • When there is no clear consensus either way, the default action should be "no move". The only exception to this should be when the proposed move is itself a revert of another move that was done boldly (without discussion), assuming there hasn't been enough time and/or "article activity without objection to the move" to establish de facto consensus for that original bold move. In that case the default action should be "move back to the original stable name", which I believe should be the immediate action even prior to any discussion (the onus to start and announce a discussion should be on those who favor moving the article from its established stable name).
With all closers following such a policy there would still be some room for admin discretion, but only on such issues as to whether the original name was really established, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Naming conventions are useful by default, but they should be subordinate to an RfC local consensus that better understands the local article's needs for naming and disambiguation renaming.
Here's another RfC vs. RM case. Based on PBS's table above Talk:Pop Music#Requested move got shafted. Poll results were: neutrally-stated proposal, three support and two oppose -- 3/5 (= move according to the table). Yet Parsecboy closed it as "No consensus". This despite the additional disambiguation consensus support by the three-month music-regulars RfC, which should have priority over a meddling 'absentee-owners' RM, in this case by disambiguation regular editors. Milo 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The table is from October 2005 and was a survey (about a year after the RM service was created). The ratios come from a discussion in May 2005 and were an attempt to bring some kind of transparancy to a service that had been running for about 8 months. The ratios were chosen because moving a page is not like deleting it and it can always be moved back at some later date. It was agreed that 49/51 was a bad idea as pages could flip flop while 40/60 was more likely to bring longer term stability as it is a greater hurdle to overcome. However there is a strong objection from some experienced editors (such as Kim Bruning) to including such ratios on the consensus page and the process pages such as RfA (80/20), RfC (75/25), RM (60/40). So there is no general agreement over these ratios -- You will find loooong discussions by Kim an myself about this issue in the consensus talk archives.
The naming conventions are a Wikipeida policy page and are not subordinate to an RfC. See policies and guidelines "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow." and consensus "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." --PBS (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I count four editors who progressively derailed the Talk:Pop music#RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?, and then walked away from that train wreck presumably congratulating themselves.
Shaft #1 In the Talk:Pop music case, the new name met WP:Naming conventions. The meddling editor apparently had little knowledge of the topic culled from a list of recent renames, incompetently misread WP:NC, failed to discuss his misreading in the invited RfC renaming discussion, and subverted the RfC by calling a WP:RM because he bureaucratically could.
Shaft #2 The RM discussion was not a wider scale community consensus. The meddling editor posted his misread claim to WP:Disambiguation and plunged Talk:Pop music#Requested move into an ongoing dispute over centralized control of disambiguation. This dispute is so contentious that a complaint caused by it recently went to ANI.
Shaft #3 One of the disputatious disambiguation editors then damaged the article's need for disambiguation by deleting a customized anti-edit-war hatnote, and another disambiguation explanation in the text. Why? Because the hatnote had customized text and not a conforming template. The text was removed because it was not in the disambiguation hatnote. Catch 22.
Shaft #4 In spite of the subvertive RM, the reverted rename won the headcount. But then Parsecboy closed it as "No consensus", in spite of the RfC's finding for a needed disambiguation that added weight to the headcount. Are the disputatious disambiguation editors now free to step through the looking glass to claim that a no consensus RM overrules an RfC to disambiguate?
How unfair is this? What can be done to implement the needed disambiguation title Pop music (genre) over the meddling editor's consensus-blocking redirect? And, how to keep future RMs from subverting recent or active RfCs? Milo 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this RfC is specifically about how much a majority of editors can be taken to represent a consensus. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your posts here, but you seem to be going off on a tangent about how you are dissatisfied with Parsecboy's close of the Pop music requested move. If you would like others to review his decision, that's fine, but start another section of this page to do so. In this section, please directly address the topic of the RfC. Otherwise, no consensus will be achieved.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"majority of editors" Hm. The RfC is titled "Moving or renaming articles based on poll results". Maybe it should have been better named, since an RM is a poll process. You also posted about this RfC at Talk:Pop music, as though the RM experience there was relevant.
I listed four shafts to Talk:Pop music resulting from the progressively unfair RM. Parsecboy was only the last problem, but he definitely didn't use a majority headcount, as I stated above directly on your desired topic.
Part of the problem is that every one of the four editors can claim that they followed the rules, yet the result was a trainwreck.
So, if it helps consensus here any, yes, that table that PBS posted for an RM consensus based on a majority count, would have stopped the Pop music trainwreck, so I endorse it.
Now, could some admin who can see how unfair this RM vs. RfC outcome was please finish the move from Pop music to Pop music (genre) over redirect? Milo 05:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted the notice about this RfC to Talk:Pop music at User:Soulscanner's request, as he seemed to think it was relevant. I didn't really think about it one way or the other. However, as you requested, I have read through both the RfC and RM discussion on that page, and I have to say that I find nothing wrong with Parsecboy's close. I have posted my analysis of the situation below, in section #Review of Pop music close.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From the summaries alone, soulscanner is wrong. Stability is is not consensus, it is inertia. We cannot assume that every, or even many, editors who visit an articles think about whether the name should be something else, especially a specific something else. The question, then, is whether a guideline should trump consensus. My sense is that consensus always trumps guidelines, which is why they are guidelines rather than rules. As for how big a majority you need before reaching consensus, I can't be of any help. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd say it's quite clear that a majority of editors agreeing to a subject in a poll, at least in absence of policy and guidelines that contradict those editors' rationales, is de facto evidence of consensus. It is, of course, open to challenge (presumably by drawing upon a wider group of editors, perhaps by bringing the specific question to an RFC), but I would say that in most cases a 60% majority of editors (as suggested above) is enough to justify a page move. Long-term stability of the page title weighs slightly in favour of retaining the existing title, so for pages that have had a particular title for a long time should require slightly more majority, say up to 75%. For newly created pages, anything over 50% would do. JulesH (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    If you look at the previous discussions we rejected this idea because it was difficult to formulate and arbitrary. For example if you make the threshold between 60% and 75% ten participants, then the outcome would be very different between nine participants and then. As the majority of polls involve less than half a dozen participants this seemed like instruction creep. 50% was rejected (even for new pages) because the 60% makes pages sticky. --PBS (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As to the question of when consensus conflicts with a guideline, I'd say that in such cases broader consensus is required. I would, for instance, expect to see a minimum level of participation that includes multiple editors with no specific interest in the article before a decision to ignore a guideline was taken. And I'd certainly require a much higher proportion of editors in a poll to agree before declaring it to be consensus. I would expect, however, that a suitably large majority was sufficient to ignore the guideline. Guidelines, after all, do not apply in all situations. JulesH (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    This is how it is in practice see for example debates over names like Zurich, Calcutta, and Ivory Coast, but it is difficult to word clearly, because if you look at what you have written "a suitably large majority was sufficient to ignore the guideline" suppose there is only a proposer that is 100% in favour of a move -- the largest majority -- but an administrator is unlikely to make it if the request is clearly against the naming conventions policy. In practices is is very unlikely that decisions involving many editors would ever be decisively against the naming policy, unless it is to do with those funny foreign squiggles that so many east Europeans like to include in names (eg Lech Wałęsa). The only case I can think of is the decision to name an article using NPOV instead of the main guidance in the naming conventions was Liancourt Rocks see WP:LAME#Liancourt Rocks. Thanks to a campaign in a Korean National newspaper during the RM last poll the single largest category was 55 invalid opinions in favour of Dokdo! --PBS (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Far more important than the name of each article is the content of each article. While it is helpful to get the article name correct, and equally helpful to fix errors in article names, it is the content not the name that overwhelmingly determines the usefulness of the encyclopedia. I believe it impossible to define strict guidelines on how to close an RM, and any mistakes can eventually be corrected. Therefore, I see no need for this discussion. 199.125.109.78 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)