Template:DS Courtesy Notice

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

Archives by topic: Common names 1, 2, 3 Naming conflict 1, 2 Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

We had a bunch of edits to the precision section today, but they do nothing to clarify or restore the meaning of "precision". They seem instead to be designed to only re-inforce the idea that precision is for nothing but avoid title collisions. Can we work on restoring a bit of what precision was for? I'll look again at the history and try to pull out a good description... Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this provision is summarized here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_36#Some_history_of_the_.22Precision.22_provision. I have incorporated the breifest hint of a positive value for precision, based on the old versions before a few editors whittled it down to nothing but disambiguation, and bofore Born2cycle tried to cast precision as a strictly negative property of a title. Let's keep the positive aspect of precision a bit distinct from the avoidance of over-precision in the case of article title collisions. Some further elaboration and separation seems like a good idea, but the bare hint of what we mean by precision as a good property of a title is now restored to the precision section at least. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits today were not supposed to solve that problem. They only cleaned, tweaked, simplified and rearranged the existing text. They were not at all designed to reinforce the idea that precision is to avoid title collision. They were designed to reinforce whatever was already written there with too many words. They helped you to see better than before a problem which was already there, and that I had not detected. Otherwise, I would have corrected it myself! Paolo.dL (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paolo, and I appreciate your help in tuning it up. Sorry if I implied that your edits were part of some other agenda; I've become overly sensitive to such things in this policy page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say how much I appreciated your contribution: thanks to your restoring edit, the section title "Precision and disambiguation" and the shortcut WP:PRECISION eventually and for the first time made sense to me. However, I still cannot understand why there's a separate section for precision, and not for other criteria listed in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Paolo.dL (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? In this edit, Born2cycle restores the more negative interpretation of precision as something to be avoided, claiming it's "well understood and long supported", essentially saying that there is no positive role for precision to "indicate accurately the topical scope of the article" as it had been for many years before the turmoil of 2009. See the history linked above. I think we need to fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved his phrasing about identifying to the topic unambiguously to the positive side; at least that says we want some precision. Is this an OK compromise? Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B2C has now done multiple additional edits to try to re-establish his position that precision is bad, essentially reverting me and SarekOfVulcan; and without joining this discussion. That's a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply restored the longstanding wording at this point. As I said in my edit summary, I don't understand Sarek's objection to the version he reverted, as the part he reverted was longstanding wording as well. I disagree with your characterization of the longstanding wording as having no positive side.

This is the longstanding wording:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

The whole first clause, everything before the comma, is positive. Then, after the comma, there is a limitation clause.

Before Sarek's revert, this is what was there:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but no more precise than that.

Let's say that's Version 2. To me, V2 has the same meaning as the original longstanding wording, but the positive part is more predominant, which is what I thought you wanted. Version 1 is the version you had, and to which Sarek reverted:

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but not overly precise.

The "not overly precise" language in V1 is new. The "no more precise than that" wording in V1 simply is rewording of the longstanding wording which said "only as precise as [that] (where [that] refers to necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously). Is the "no" a problem? How about this?

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, but only as precise as that.

Personally, I think "no more precise than that" is more clear than "only as precise as that", but the intended meaning is ultimately the same. No? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, "no more precise than that" means that titling the article Bothell, Washington is against policy -- it must be named Bothell. "Not overly precise" disallows Bothell (city), King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, USA, but allows Bothell, Washington. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and US city names are one of the very few exceptions to that. Anyway, now you're talking about changing the meaning of the wording, which is not how this endeavor started.

The problem with V1 is "but not overly precise" is vague as compared to the original "only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously", or V2's "no more precise than [enough to identify the topic of the article unambiguously]". I know that's exactly what you and Dick are trying to remove, but it's been in there a very long time, for good reason, and does reflect actual practice, both past and current (except for US city names). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And except for royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions. Do we really need to encode a pretense in policy? older ≠ wiser 01:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precision has gotten more influential in royalty. Plant articles that use scientific Latin names when the common English name is sufficiently precise are an exception too. There might be a few others that favor following a pattern per consistency, but those are the exceptions. Those exceptions aside, which are accounted for with the use of "usually" in the wording, the precision criterion as written certainly applies to the vast majority of our articles, and always has. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We went round and round on this before. Maybe an RFC is in order, where anyone can propose a rewording of the precision section, and we discuss a bit and then vote for which ones we think move us in the right direction. After that, a bit more discussion, and decide what to do. Does that seem reasonable? Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My prediction: months from now, someone will justify France (country) because of this new text. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

Let's be practical:

1. Sometimes, we prefer titles that are more precise than needed to be unambiguous. For instance, we prefer:
   • Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Although Bothell is unambiguous, and hence precise enough, we prefer a more precise and more easily recognizable title (see WP:PLACE).
2. Sometimes, we prefer titles that are less precise than needed to be unambiguous. Namely, the titles of articles which refer to a primary topic are, by definition, ambiguous (see WP:Primary topic). Indeed, they are disambiguated by means of a subtitle (e.g. "This article is about the country. For other uses, see France (disambiguation)"). For instance, we prefer:
   • France over France (country) (see comment above by Enric Naval; see France (disambiguation))
   • Perth over Perth (Australia) (see Perth (disambiguation)).
   • Energy over Energy (phisics) (see Energy (disambiguation)).

Everyone agrees Consensus has been already reached about this! (see WP:Primary topic and WP:PLACE). Is it so difficult to translate it into a criterion? None of the sentences suggested above to describe this criterion is sufficiently detailed to explain this. We need some more detail. For instance:

It is not true to say that Everyone agrees about prefering Bothell, Washington over Bothell. Born2cycle among others have argued long and vigorously against that convention. The situation has been fairly quiescent recently, as there appears to be a sort of grudging acceptance of the U.S. city convention now addressed in occasional individual move discussions. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also British places are usually specified more precisely than American places for cultural reasons. It is quite common for Americans to say for example "Birmingham, Alabama" while a Brit is very unlikely to say (or write) "Birmingham, West Midlands" or "Birmingham, England", to a certain degree it is a "National varieties of English issue" coupled to natural language usage. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached about the two statements above, but currently the precision criterion would reject the first statement! The alternative criterion suggested by Born2cycle is too strict and would reject both! If the criterion is based on previously reached consensus, as I proposed, we can avoid further useless and time consuming fights. It is wise for everybody to abide to consensus. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably more complicated than that. Some cities in the U.S. are automatically primary topics. British cities are supposed to be more closely defined, but often are not. And Canada has a whole group of editors who have determined city by city whether any has a duplicated name and which can be listed as a primary topic. This has resulted in some very esoteric Canadian names with no other information in the title that would even identify it as a town. The point I am trying to make is that there are country-by-country local naming conventions. Neotarf (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my proposal (see above). The goal is the same, but now I distinguished more clearly the (strict) criterion from the (codified) exceptions. I think the text is now better structured, much easier to understand, and less questionable. See above.

Neotarf, what you wrote is true, but I would not worry too much about it. We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article. My proposal is already more detailed than the previous ones. A more detailed proposal is likely to produce disagreement, rather than solving this never-ending conflict. In my proposal,

• Wolfgang Amadeus MozartMother Teresa is the example for a valid title that is as precise as needed to be unambiguous (no more, no less).
• Bothell, Washington is just an example for a valid title that may appear too precise, while
• GuitarEnergy is just an example for a valid title that may appear not precise enough.

Being more detailed than that is a suicide. What's important is writing a criterion that allows for some flexibility (tradeoff with other criteria), but not too much flexibility (undetermined level of freedom). Valid exceptions must include both GuitarEnergy (ambiguous and hence not precise enough, according to the current version of the criterion) and Bothell, Washington (unambiguous, but too precise according to the text proposed by Born2cycle, as there exists a less precise title that is also unambiguous). We will stop fighting about nothing and move on if we can accept this. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be conflating issues. Precision is not the reason (or at least not the only reason) that Bothell, Washington and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are prefered over Bothell and Mozart even though the shorter terms are redirects to the primary topic. Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me? If possible, find another example in which other stylistic matters do not affect the determination. But I think that a title is never selected according only to a single criterion. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly. Substituting one possibly problematic example for another is not progress. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example about United Kingdom is not "possibly problematic", but totally inappropriate, as United Kingdom is not a precise title! In other words, it is a proper example for an exception to the precision criterion, not for its application. (see my proposal above) Paolo.dL (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom to my mind remains a far clearer illustration. United Kingdom IS precise enough for it to be the title of the article. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" IS an actual, official name for the subject. "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)" on the other hand is an entirely artificial contruct. There is no obvious reason why anyone would want to use that as the title. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that United Kingdom is precise enough to be a title for an article about "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But not as precise as needed to be unambiguous. You are right about "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791)". So, let's use Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta versus Mother Teresa, which should make both of us happy. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my proposal, taking into account the contribution by Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"). Other advices? Paolo.dL (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think that Bkonrad made a good point that you missed when he said "Other stylistic matters affect the determination beyond precision alone." That is, precision is but one criterion; it doesn't need to specify any hard rule that would then need exceptions to get around it. You can just as well point out that Bothell is plenty precise, but Bothell, Washington is much more recognizable (to most people, "Foobar, Washington" is "recognizable" as a city in Washington state USA, even it doesn't exist). And guitar (instrument) is very precise, but almost nobody would think that guitar would be anything else, or less precise, so precision provides very little to go against conciseness on that one; that's what primaryname is supposed to go, but it gets way overapplied in genuinely ambiguous situations (like Perth, famously). Certainly Wolfgang Mozart is precision enough, or at least certainly primary, so why didn't we use that more concise term than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? In this case, it's probably recognizability again that tilts the scale. I think your proposal comes close to falling into Born2cycle's style of trying to making naming into an algorithm. It would be better if we could just describe the virtues of precision, recognizability, and so on, fairly, in a way like we used to, and let editors do the tradeoffs. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dicklyon. You may have misunderstood my goal, or I may have not explained it yet clearly enough. I am not describing a rigid "algorithm". On the contrary, I am helping the readers to understand that the policy allows for some flexibility ("tradeoffs" with other criteria). I do not give rules for that flexibility. I only give examples. In other words, I do understand Bkonrad's sentence, and your comments about "tradeoffs" between criteria, and indeed I think we should mention this idea in WP:PRECISION. A vague text like the current one in WP:PRECISION only obtains the effect to be challenged by editors who legitimately want a stricter criterion, just because it is less vague. In other words, the wide consensus existing about flexibility, and its sound rationale, must be explained as they are not immediately understood by editors. That's why I modified my proposal accordingly two days ago. Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my proposal again today, taking into account Dicklyon's contribution. For instance, I agree that, for most people, Guitar is precise enough to be unambiguous. I did not use the example about Perth, as it may be controversial, but I used Energy instead of Guitar, as Energy is a more ambiguous term (at least for people who are not familiar with physics). I also explained that a primary topic is not precise enough to be unambiguous, but precise enough to be understood by most people (see also my latest answer to Bkinrad about United Kingdom). Paolo.dL (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolo.dL I am finding some of what you are proposing reasonable, but from some of what you have written I think you are off target. For example you write "We cannot specify every detail of WP:PLACE in this general article". This is not a general article it is a policy. PLACE is a naming convention (guideline) that explains and supplements this policy. US places have the format they do for Wikipdia historic reasons -- back in 2002 a bot was used to create 1,000 of them using the format they have (see Ram-Man and Rambot). So US place names are not useful examples to use because so many have already been created and they have a format that differs from the rest of the planet. I am broadly in agreement with what older/wiser wrote above and your dismissal "Your criticism is not constructive. I am trying to solve a fight. Are you interested in helping me?" does not seem to me to be solving a fight but creating one. older/wiser asked "I don't think you've explained what fight it is that you're trying to solve very clearly." Nor do I. What is the fight you are trying to solve? -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an edit war recently, discussed right above my proposal, in #Precision problems, and below, in #Last stable version?. It has not been solved yet, and seems to be about some changes made in 2009 (Dycklyon calls them "the turmoil of 2009"). This war is so difficult to solve that Born2cycle, in section #AN/I regarding restoring stable version of precision wording, requested "the assistance of an uninvolved administrator to restore the stable wording of the precision criterion".

WP:PLACE provides an example of over-precision. It would be nice if we could say that it is the only example. However, according to older≠wiser, there are several other examples, which include "royalty and some aspects for the tree of life topics and any number of other exceptions". Please let me know if you have other examples. If you agree, in this proposal we can say something like that:

• The only examples of insufficient or excessive precision are described in specific guidelines, such as WP:Primary topic, WP:PLACE, WP:ROYALTY.

But I would like to know also Dicklyon's and older≠wiser's opinion about that. A similar sentence already exists, but it only refers to "the main" exceptions to the precision criterion (not all of them). I think that this approach is more conservative, more realistic, and less questionable, but I will abide to consensus.

The discussion at the beginning of this section (before my proposal) is about these exceptions to the precision criterion. I started this proposal with this sentence: "Let's be practical". I mean that these exceptions exist and are used profusely. They are not sporadic. We only need to find the most appropriate way to describe them. This is the wisest way to deal with their existence. Providing information about the interaction between different criteria is enlightening. We won't get stable consensus about vague statements. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you it helps put it in context but, I am not sure how much of the archives you have read. There was a loooooooooong discussion about this issue in the last quarter of last year. It revolved around some titles that Tony1 wanted to rename. I think the first example was in the section Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 33#Article specificity but there are lots of sections after that. Wikipedia tend to use the official short legislative names as used in the Commonwealth (The official short name for an Act followed by the year) -- unless thre is a well known common name for the Act. We do not normally include the country/state in the name unless it is needed for disambiguation purposes. Tony1 is/was of the opinion that we should add more to the name not for disambiguation purposes but for clarity. Acts of parliaments are a good test example to use--because legislators already give Acts unique names, so making the names longer is usually about additions for clarity rather than disambiguation--but the principle can be extended to other fields. He did not find a majority of editors in favour of making this change. -- PBS (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the change was rejected, this seems to be another example for titles that need to meet the precision criterion. Even if the change had been accepted, I don't think we should discuss in WP:PRECISION every possible specific exception to the principle criterion. We only need to warn readers that

1. exceptions do exist,
2. they can be only accepted when they are supported by other sufficiently "heavy" stylistic considerations (e.g., other naming criteria, or WP:Primary topic) and validated by consensus
3. most of them are (luckily) described in specific guidelines.

For that, we just need two examples of validated exceptions: one for excessive precision, and the other for insufficient precision. Let me know if you agree. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about PBS's latest contribution, I modified the proposal to make clear that all the exceptions to the precision criterion need to be "validated by consensus". The first sentence of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA alredy says that this is required whenever there is more than one possible title "for any given article". In this case, consensus is even more important. Dicklyon, I hope you agree that this is not an algorithm. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the first sentence of the proposal is almost identical to the first sentence in WP:PRECISION (just less vague). The following sentence is only meant to briefly summarize what you all explained in this talk page, so that you won't have to repeat it again. It is neither meant to be an algorithm, nor to authorize or encourage a change like that proposed last year by Tony1 and described above by PBS (17:48, 16 July 2012). The proposal has been modified repeatedly according to your comments. I just made it even shorter. I believe it is now mature for publication. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the unnecessary precision of Bothell, Washington - which is titled contrary to how most WP articles are titled, including most articles about cities - is an example of anything, it's WP:IAR. The so-called "convention" has never had consensus support - it has merely also failed to develop consensus in opposition. It's a stalemate at best, and has been for years. Such an example has no place at WP:AT. Changes to policy wording that portray aberrations as if they are the norm are unacceptable.

But thanks for showing how such aberrations, if accepted, would unnecessarily complicate the policy by riddling it with messy exceptions and contradictions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I described them as exceptions, not "the norm". Also, since most of them are described in guidelines, it is obvious that most editors agree that they are not "aberrations", but valid exceptions. I know that you don't like it, but I am just describing the current situation. You might be able to change it in the future, and in that case the second sentence will be removed. It does not matter whether we agree that these exceptions are valid or not. They do exist and they are by no means rare, so we just need to warn editors about their existance. Sharing knowledge is useful. Simply, more people will be aware that some exceptions are described in specific guidelines. Some people may regard them as stylistically valid, some others as aberrations. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue rather that it's normal, and not an exception, to title cities with city, state. The so-called "unnecessary precision" is an exception to B2C's minimalism; that interpretation of "precision" and "recognizability", where "conciseness" trumps all, is itself widely disputed. So I think that listing these as "exceptions" goes too far in shoring up his interpretation as "normal". Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Born2cycle does not agree with you about the fact that this proposal shores up "his interpretation as normal". This proposal simply describes the true situation much more clearly than the current text, which is too vague. Notice that my text does not say that "city, state" is "not normal". It only says it is a valid exception to one criterion, supported by a guideline. In our opinion, it is "normal" that some title may not completely meet ALL criteria, as some criteria cannot be (totally) met without disregarding others. In the opinion of others, it is not "normal". Paolo.dL (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I disagree that this is an example over-precision, and don't want to see it portrayed as such. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't deny that, although "city, state" is as precise as needed to be natural and recognizable, it is in some cases more precise than needed to be unambiguous. I am stating nothing else. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I deny is that it's more precise than the usual precision criterion calls for. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the "usual precision criterion" (i.e. the current version of the criterion) is purposedly vague, not because we don't know how to make it clear, but just because we are afraid to. It is not designed to explain, but to conceal. Not to be readable, but ambiguous. See below. I am sure you understand. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if your intention is to make the usual precision criterion more clear, you need to first arrive at a clear understanding of what the community supports. Your edits seem instead to be bolstering the minimalist interpretation, which has never had widespread support, and directly contradicts the way the provision was accepted prior to 2009, which said that titles should be precise enough to define the topic of the article; B2C threw that out in favor of precision being a bad thing, such that you want just enough to not make names collide. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you became too suspicious. In short:

1. I wrote "precision is a goal, over-precision should be avoided"
2. I even added examples to show that in some cases over-precision is good.

And you reacted as if I had written "precision is bad"! You wrote twice in the article "...but avoid over-precision". I added the Mother Teresa example just to explain this sentence of yours. How can you fail to notice that, without mentioning exceptions, this sentence of yours is not only vague, but even more "minimalist" than my proposal? That's why Born2cycle hates my proposal. BritishWatcher below was afraid as you are, but he eventually understood the neutrality of my proposal. You are probably the only one who thinks I am biased. Let's be practical. What examples of specific titles are incorrectly explained or not allowed for in my proposal? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, it's not you that I'm suspicious of. But I don't like supporting the notion of "over precision", which inherently treats precision as bad; so, yes, "precision is good"; but no to calling good precision "over precision". Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being picky on my text, but not on yours, which is much worse. Let me explain. My text explicitly states that being over-precise may be good in some cases. The drawback you see in my text is trifling. Your text says "avoid over-precision", without explaining the boundary between precise and over-precise. This can be easily interpreted as more strict, less flexible, more negative and more minimalist than my text. Moreover, it is certainly less clear! Paolo.dL (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a text, and if I did it wouldn't include a negative spin on precision like "avoid over-precision"; I'd phrase it positively, more like it used to be when it said something like "precise enough to clearly indicate the topic of the article". Many of our titles are not nearly that precise, due to the interpretation that more precision than is needed to avoid collisions is "over precision". Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not, you inserted a paragraph containing the sentence "avoid over-precision" at the very beginning of WP:PRECISION. Later, you used the same sentence in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

1. Revision as of 17:36, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Precision and disambiguation: say what precision is for first, then what we need to do if that's not enough)
2. Revision as of 19:06, 7 July 2012, by Dicklyon (Deciding on an article title: rephrase precision bullet more positively)

The current versions of both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION still contain that sentence, and have a significant drawback: they do not explain the boundary between precise and "over-precise".

Paolo.dL (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

In my opinion, both Born2cycle and Dicklyon seem to be afraid to state the obvious, possibly because neither likes the current situation. They both prefer being vague, either by hiding the existance of a number of validated exceptions which actually do exist, or by using a vague formulation of the criterion (the current formulation) which makes it difficult for the reader to understand the difference between precise and "overly precise". But being vague is not a good service to the readers, who deserve to know what we all (including Born2cycle and Dicklyon) know and the article does not explain. Does anybody agree with me? Paolo.dL (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just arrived at this debate and read through briefly the conversation, sorry but id just like to check something as the bits about country articles concerned me. Would this proposal in anyway impact on the position of any current country article, or would this alteration have no impact on the current positions which go by WP:Commonname? Common name in my opinion is far more important than precision when it comes to article titles, particularly of countries. Which is why almost every single country article on wikipedia is at a common name, not the full official precise name. If this alteration would change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname, then i strongly oppose any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it makes clear exactly what you wrote, i.e. that there exist validated exceptions to the precision criterion, which result from the application of other naming criteria. Currently, readers are not even warned that WP:Commonname may in some cases prevail over WP:Precision! My proposal is only meant to explain the current situation from a neutral point of view, not to change the balance in terms of precision vs commonname. Notice that WP:Commonname is based on two naming criteria: naturaleness and recognizability, which are exactly the two naming criteria I mention in my first example (about Bothell, Washington). Paolo.dL (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale. The current versions of both WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION contain the similar sentences "...not overly-precise" and "...avoid over-precision". They have a significant drawback: they do not explain the boundary between precise and "over-precise". This can be easily interpreted by readers as a strict and minimalist approach, which does not allow for the more flexible approach adopted in some guidelines (e.g. WP:PLACE, see comments above by Bkonrad and BritishWatcher). My proposal is bold enough to define the boundary between precise and over-precise, but more importantly and nothwithstanding this:

• It explains that being over-precise (e.g. Bothell, Washington) or slightly ambiguous (e.g., Energy) is a good idea in some cases. In other words, it explains that flexibility is appreciated in some cases, provided that there's a good reason to be flexible (see below).
• It explains what Dicklyon called "tradeoff", and BritishWatcher called "balance" between criteria, which is the reason why we want to be flexible in some cases (not only in the application of the precision criterion). This balance is not an invention of mine, nor Dicklyon's, nor BritishWatcher's. It is already described in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (..."It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others"...).
• It cannot be interpreted as a policy change, as it just explains, carefully and more clearly than before, the "balanced" approach currently adopted in Wikipedia, as already described in guidelines such as WP:Primary topic, WP:PLACE, or WP:ROYALTY, which is neither too strict (or "minimalist"), nor too flexible.

So, my proposal is a significant improvement with respect to the current text. Also, notice that my proposal was repeatedly modified, taking into account the contributions of Bkonrad (alias "older ≠ wiser"), Neotarf, Dicklyon, and BPS. I am asking you to compare my proposal to the current text, not to an hypothetical (either minimalist or more flexible) approach that you would like to be adopted. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody objected to my rationale, after modifying my proposal according to your comments, I inserted it in the article with this edit summary: "This text is the result of a long discussion (see Summary). Even though some may not like it, the precision criterion is currently applied with some flexibility, according to guidelines." Paolo.dL (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may realize, I still object to the idea that Bothell, Washington is an example of "overly precise". Let's see what others say on that. But one more thing you might want to consider fixing is the language that came in with this edit of yours: "When additional precision (or detail in more recent versions) is necessary to distinguish an article title from another...", where previously it had the admittedly awkward "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name...". The point is that precision and ambiguity are not about distinguishing titles, but about distinguishing topics. Work on that? Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I read your previous comments with extreme attention. By the way I wish to thank you, as well as Bkonrad, Neotarf, BPS, Born2cycle, and BritishWatcher, for providing precious information throughout this discussion. As I explained in more detail above, the previous text did not specify whether Bothell, Washington was overly precise or not, but being extremely vague it was likely to be interpreted that way.

I removed the sentence "Bothell, Washington is overly precise", and simplified my proposal. My proposal was not meant to simply state that Bothell, Washington is "overly precise" from any possible viewpoint. It was meant to explain that Bothell is precise enough to be unambiguous, which implies that Bothell, Washington is over-precise if and only if your only goal is to be unambiguous, but as precise as needed to be natural and recognizable. And I am sure you agree that this is true. This way to describe flexibility is extremely helpful. Nothwithstanding the strict definition of the precision criterion, the examples make it difficult for readers to deny that flexibility does exist and is supported by guidelines.

You are perfectly right about the fact that precision is "not about distinguishing titles, but about distinguishing topics". See my edit. Feel free to edit yourself.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; thanks for replacing "Bothell, Washington is overly precise" with a more appropriate statement. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know is this right place for my question and if it is not, please direct me to page where I can ask my question. There is problem with name of this page: Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Page was started in 2 May 2006 and original name of page was "Nedić's Serbia": [1]. Looks that name of page was changed multiple times and that last change was made by User:DIREKTOR in 7 May 2012: [2]. I read WP:TITLE policy and this policy say: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I think that last name of page do not conforms to WP:TITLE. There is just one source in English language that support name "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia": [3]. I proposed voting for new name for page: [4]. But User:Peacemaker67 defend current page name and claim that current title conforms to WP:TITLE. My question for expert administrators here is: do name backed by only one source in English language conforms to WP:TITLE? There are several more names that Wikipedia can use for this page and all of them are backed by more sources than current page name (some of other names are "Military Administration in Serbia", "Nedić's Serbia", "Serbia under German occupation"). What you think which of listed names is best supported by WP:TITLE? Nemambrata (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the appropriate place to address this issue. If you cannot get a consensus there to support your proposed change it is entirely inappropriate for you to be seeking to enlist support for your argument here. This page is about article titles in general and not about a disagreement on the title of a specific one. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussion of WP:COMMONNAME is off base in this case... that policy provision really applies to articles that use "names" as their title, and the current title is more a description of the subject than a name for it (indeed, I am not sure that there is a common "name" for the historical geo-political area that is the subject of the article) ... we allow some degree of flexibility when it comes to descriptive titles. I will leave it to discussion at the article talk page to determine whether or not there is a better description of the subject that could be used as an article title. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which at least one contributor has recommended that we should title an article using the individual's full name (although she didn't use it) in order to avoid parenthetical disambiguation. Contributions welcome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this should be recommended in the guidance with respect to COMMONNAME. It allows you to compare words and track new content, so you can see what is most used at the moment, within the last 12 months etc. It also allows you to filter by country (although, unfortunately, only one country at a time), so it is possible to focus on English-speaking countries and cut out the noise from other sources around the world. Lastly, you can filter it to return only news sources if you want to.

This seems to me to be much better suited to our purposes than Google News and Google Books, which is what is recommended at present. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Google Insights for the benefit of others: http://www.google.com/insights/search/ A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this can be Google-bombed? In any case, as a test, I took a look at the ever popular Sega Genesis[http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=%22Sega%20Genesis%22&cmpt=q�] versus Sega MegaDrive [5] naming dispute. It seems like it gives a slight edge to the former. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a comparison in one graph by separating with a comma: [6]. The feature I really like, though, is filtering by country (this graph shows why this article title is such a problem: [7]). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly better than Google News, which includes a lot of non-English sources. (With News, you can type in Search_term location:United States or whatever, but how many people know that?) Kauffner (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, Google Insights is based on what people are searching for, not on content sources (reliable or otherwise), so it is only of indirect value - to get a perspective on what the man in the street (rather than reliable sources) is using (at least as a search term, not necessarily in normal writing).--Boson (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The secret of good SEO is matching the article title, and the words near the top of the article, with what a majority of searchers are searching for. If it's not found then it's not read. So surely Google Insights is very relevant to choosing an optimal title.
• This is one of the strongest arguments for not using diacritics in article titles: Google Insights shows that, even in Brazil, about half of the searches use Pele and half Pelé. Of course the proportion of searches using Pele rather than Pelé is very much higher in English-speaking countries. Forcing Wikipedia to use redirects for popular articles is a waste of resources. Opinions like "diacritics (where available) must be used in English Wikipedia Article Titles seem about as stupid to me as "Chinese or Japanese kanji must be used in English Wikipedia Article Titles".
• The Google Keyword Tool allows you to find the most searched-for words in certain websites (reliable sources that you choose).
• Google Search allows you to see search keywords highlighted in the content by clicking on "cache" in the search-engine results page—you can even do a site search (prefix domain to search with "site:") to check usage in a reliable source of your choosing.
• I have previously tried repeatedly to summarize how to research the most recognizable and consistent article title, and to link WP:AT to Wikipedia:Search engine test, but have been repeatedly reverted. LittleBen (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not in the business of SEO. --Boson (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wikipedia articles are not found by searching in search engines, and not read, then they become irrelevant—and the people who created the articles were largely wasting their time. Are you saying that Wikipedia in the business of being irrelevant? LittleBen (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting notion. If Wikipedia is in the business of being irrelevant, then we're doing it wrong. We're the #1 information resource on the planet. I don't think you've thought that argument through, LittleBenW. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rephrase so editors do not think RM is the only legitimate way of discussing proposed moves. This has caused confusion and frustration. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell

having move discussions in places other than FM is being cited as a sanctionable policy violation. Current practice and ANI say it isn't. Can we change the verbiage to reflect that?

The current instructions in Considering title changes include

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

This is written as an absolute. RM is not always necessary, there are other avenues. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive; longstanding practice has not required this. We have had at least one case of an extended wikilawyering due to taking this as a no-exceptions absolute. I think the section text should be changed to

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should seek broad consensus before any change is made. Listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves or holding a request for comment is advisable. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

This more accurately reflects actual practice while retaining important caution about seeking wide consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... my experience has been that title changes that are controversial are almost always raised at WP:RM (ie seeking third party opinions at RM is the widespread longstanding practice) Can you give us some examples of controversial title change proposals that were not advertised at WP:RM? Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know of several, but the one which brought me here is here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It seems to me that a lot of the confusion described in that ANI would have been avoided had the move proposal been listed at RM and not combined with a number of other issues in one RfC. The purpose of listing RM's is to allow for broad-based discussion focused on the title. I haven't done an analysis of the participants in the RfC but I'm guessing it was mainly involved editors. Would you agree? Jojalozzo 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would have prevented the problem of the wikilawyering and subsequent debate on ANI; I do not think that is addressing the problem. RM was originally created for technical moves only. While I appreciate that it has morphed into primarily a page for discussion about controversial moves, I do not believe it should be the only place for discussion. The editors of this page did not anticipate an issue with using Rfc, nor should they have, as the result of the ANI report shows. While it might have prevented problems, that is taking a prescriptive approach, which is not how Wikipedia traditionally does things. We write what practice is in policies, not what we think it would be in a perfect world. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Since RfC is not recommended in this article for page moves, I would think editors may well have anticipated such issues. b) As I understand it, your proposal also takes a preventative approach. Aren't you also attempting to address the issues that arose at Men's rights? Jojalozzo 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. those "issues" were addressed at ANI, where it was found that an Rfc is perfectly acceptable mechanism for such a move discussion. THIS is to prevent frustration and confusion to future editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RM has a specific purpose--to list and advertise potentially controversial title changes. RFCs are an umbrella process that can cover just about anything under the sun and thus don't get the focused attention by those interesting in title policy. Conducting an RM under the guise of an RFC does not provide any benefit to WP or its editors, it merely is a way to obfuscate a move. The example provided wasn't very clean and would have been much better handled as an RM. Is an RFC for a title change subject to WP:RMCI? and a WP:MRV? We don't conduct RFCs for deletion debates, nor should we for title changes. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the original purpose, nor is it borne out by how the tools are laid out. Moves can be done by anyone. If we are to have a single page only location for these discussions, it is important to have another Rfc and discuss moving the ability to move pages to admins only, as in delete ion debates, Your example does not hold water. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a specific answer to this? Is an RFC for a title change subject to WP:RMCI? and a WP:MRV? In other words if an editor closes an RFC on a title change, can that decision be judged in light of WP:RMCI and/or can the editor's decision be reviewed at WP:MRV? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is outside the scope of this discussion, and so far as I know no discussion regarding that has been held on WP. MRV is brand new; certainly no previous moves had such a page available to them. If you think moves made by methods other than RM should be open to MRV, I suggest you start a separate Rfc, and also suggest you wait until this one is over. Do you think any page move should be subject to MRV? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfcs have been used since at least 2004 to discuss potentially problematic moves. RM was created for technical moves only, its role in potentially problematic moves is far more recent. Your verbiage claiming an Rfc on a move is intended to obfuscate is an insult to everyone who ever created, participated in, or closed such an Rfc, and I request you retract such hostile and accusatory phrasing. It does not advance the discussion at hand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point I am trying to make here is that I seriously question what advantage an RFC has in making a title change over the RM process which has a set of long-standing closing instructions and a new, but tested, Move Review process. Currently in the Category:Wikipedia requests for comment there are 110 entries. No one can discern which ones (if any) are for title changes by reading the RFC title. Additionally, RFC closing instructions] provide no guidance what so ever about making policy/consensus based title decisions. The fact that an Admin has to close an RM where the target title already exists if the move is being made over a redirect is irrelevant. Many RMs have been preceded by RFCs where editors discussed and reached consensus on alternative titles and article scope. The subsequent RM becomes much cleaner, but still was subject to WP:RMCI and WP:MRV. What I haven't heard yet is why we should allow potentially controversial title changes to be made outside the long-standing RM process. What advantage does that have for the community? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the fact that it is accepted practice means nothing? YOu want a policy which does NOT accurately describe current accepted practice? Begging for problems and wikilawyering and wasted time and effort? The only way to ensure RM is always used is to make it an admin only feature, which I find inadvisable, but if as you state it should be handled like Afd then that is the only way to do it. And no, the original purpose of the RM page and process is not irrelevant, as you were citing it's only "purpose" to be the more recent one, usually formerly done by page discussions and Rfcs, to be its only purpose. That is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and propose to remove words "potentially controversial". The rare exceptions when the title change should not be passed though WP:RM — typos, AfD outcomes, etc. — should be noted in the policy, but any non-trivial title change is potentially controversial and should be done via WP:RM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it must be made an admin-only feature. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-typo, bold moves are made every day without any discussion. Requiring all of them to go through RM would create unnecessary bureaucracy. I think the phrase "potentially controversial" is spot on. Jojalozzo 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, especially considering the backlog already present. -— Isarra ༆ 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the backlog is one reason some editors choose to avoid RM if the discussion has no anticipated problems. An Rfc fits neatly between BOLD, page discussion, and the other end of RM. Why go to RM if no issues are anticipated? And yet the opposes on this page feel everything but typo's should. I consider this needless bureaucracy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look here. A ton of moves, which people disagreed with, being handled in a civil fashion on a talk page. This is how problems with moves normally work - RM is not used for most moves, ad MRV is not needed to correct moves with which people disagree, most of the time. It is that simple. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And people can do that, but it's best keep policies simple. Encouraging people to start out ignoring RM is not going to help anything. -— Isarra ༆ 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, no one is suggesting anyone "start ignoring RM" where on earth did you get that idea???? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This doesn't really seem needed, considering both versions apply to potentially controversial ones and both mention getting a consensus, and requested moves should be a good way to bring in the uninvolved editors needed for any meaningful consensus. If something needs an RfC, most folks who could make that judgement would know how to go that route anyway whilst keeping to the intent of the policy, and it seems others could be directed that way after the request if needed as well. But what do I know? -— Isarra ༆ 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are aware of the recent two days and thousands of words expended on this, because an editor was under the impression that an RM is required, and the decision on ANI that Rfc's are acceptable mechanisms for such discussion? I hope to clarify actual practice in this page, to prevent such wasted time and effort. As it reads now the policy is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the problem there was that it was on ANI. That said, RfCs can certainly achieve the same results, but given that they are neither directed at people familiar with the process nor any subset more likely to actually care (like those frequenting WP:RM), that route doesn't seem advisable in most cases. For the ones for which it would be, well, policies are just policies, not the absolutely law of the land, especially when they only say 'should whatever'. -— Isarra ༆ 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the problem was that one user thought RM was absolutely required, whcih is what the current words say. It isn't, which is the decision on ANI.NOTLAW was cited about a dozen times to the complaining editor on the article talk page, to no avail. THAT's why it went to ANI. The problem is the wording above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  People will always find a way to misinterpret policies regardless of the wording, as well as the nature of policy in general on the project - that there are those who would consider the current wording grounds for taking measures against those not using WP:RM is proof enough of that, but all we can really do about such things is deal with them as they come up. Having policies with wording that applies best to common cases best such that people have a baseline from which to start, however, should always be best practice, and in the meantime WP:IAR applies to the rest, same as with anything.
  That's not to say the wording here can't be improved, however. Maybe mentioning the need for consensus first in order to emphasise that that's the more important thing and then bringing in RM as the example would work better? Though there are many ways to achieve a consensus, WP:RM is the most applicable to these and its use should certainly be encouraged if discussion is needed. -— Isarra ༆ 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I'm wide open to phrasing suggestions. My aim is to ensure this is accurate, I'm not married to my suggested phrasing. The phrasing Dave Souza tried would work for me, as would probably hundreds of other ways to phrase it. My issue is that the verbiage is inaccurate right now, and leading people to think sanctions are in order if RM is not used. We need to address that, because that is false. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The recent phrasing implies that RM is essential, contradicting the RM page itself which states "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." If an informal discussion can be appropriate, an RfC fully meets the requirement for advertising. It also goes against the informed discussion the recent ANI, which concluded that ""An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved". Obviously RM isn't the only way to get the needed consensus, as an improvement I've made a minimal modification to this titles page:[8]

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised appropriately, either by holding an request for comment or listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

Please propose improvements rather than reverting to an unclear version which contradicts RM. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change until such time as there is clear consensus that we want to make title changes via RFC as well as RM. If that is the consensus we should then make the appropriate changes to WP:RMCI and WP:MRV to ensure they cover RFC generated title changes. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. You seem to be edit warring to make Wikipedia self-contradictory and unworkable. RM has a backlog to 13 July, and you want to force all "potentially contentious controversial" discussions there instead of them being resolved on the article talk page as it says you can at RM? Since these linked pages are specific to RM, not sure why they should apply to moves resolved in talk page discussion, but feel free to reword them to comply with RM. . dave souza, talk 20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) controversial corrected, 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, There has always' been consensus that Rfc is a method to determine consensus to make changes. It is RM which is the newer method. And clearly, Rfc has not been put to pasture. You are acting like I'm suggesting a change in how things are done. I am not. I'm saying we need to correct the error on this page, because it is confusing people. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One must always take care in using absolutes. Always The RFC process was born on Feb 1, 2004, the RM process on Oct 9, 2004 and the RM process incorporated controversial and potentially controversial moves on Sept 9, 2006. We have been operating the current RM process to make title changes for nearly 6 years. It may be a newer process, but it is not a new process. I have seen no evidence of the mass confusion this proposed change seems to fix. One hard-headed editor in an ANI discussion doesn't represent confusion among 138,000 editors. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making Rfc a method used two years longer than RM, and nowhere has anyone ever said it could no longer be used - along with less structured talk page discussions and mediation. The point is that the words on the policy page say RM is theonly way, and it isn't. It may be your preferred way, and it may be the best way. But it sure hell is not the only way. And I didn't claim "mass confusion" I claim, correctly as it happens, that the policy page is phrased incorrectly, and gives inaccurate information. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We are talking apples, oranges and peaches here with the obvious anomaly that they are all in the same basket. First, WP:RM makes no reference to WP:RFC (peaches), but instead suggests resolving title issues through informal talk page discussion (oranges). I fully support informal talk page discussions, but would not consider WP:RFC as an informal discussion. Second, RMs (apples) take place on the same article talk page as would a title change related RFC. To suggest that RMs are not a talk page discussion, even by implication, is disingenuous. The major differences between the two processes are this. RMs are a formal title change process (since 9-9-2006) for controversial move, fully supported by a set of closing instructions that emphasizes consensus and title policy considerations, a centralized method of advertising where in one list, every RM underway can be seen with a brief rationale as to why a move is being suggested, and a format review process to deal with controversial RM closes. On the other hand, RFCs are a formal, broad brush process. When used for a title change, there are no set of closing instructions to emphasize the need for consensus and title policy considerations, no method of advertising them as title change RFCs, and no method for review if someone is unhappy with the RFC close. Both these processes would take place on the same talk page.

… to make Wikipedia self-contradictory and unworkable. RM has a backlog to 13 July, and you want to force all "potentially contentious controversial" discussions there instead of them being resolved on the article talk page as it says you can at RM? Since these linked pages [RMCI and MRV] are specific to RM, not sure why they should apply to moves resolved in talk page discussion

I think your math is weak here and but the motivation clear. By encouraging RFCs (30 days) as an alternative to RMs (7 days) the potential for large backlogs is even greater. Because title change RFCs are not advertised as such, you would have to seek out closers, instead of relying on closers to work RMs via the advertised list. Finally, since an RM and an RFC on a title would be conducted on the very same talk page, the last comment indicates that you would prefer to make title changes sans any set of closing rules or review process.

In my opinion, encouraging the use of RFCs to make title changes in WP:AT is bad policy and will cause more work and more contention. WP:RM must be consistent with WP:AT, not the other way round. Informal discussions are fine, but formal RFCs have zero advantage in title changes over our long standing RM process. Until such time as someone provides serious rationale why a potentially controversial title change should be handled via an RFC instead of RM, we should not change the policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• RMs are not required for controversial moves. Any discussion in the talk page, a RfC, a AfD, can result in a page move. This was made clear at the ANI discussion. We should tweak the wording to reflect current consensus on wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why an RfC could not be combined with a requested move discussion to gain wider discussion and that is easily added to the quoted language. The problem is that most of the people who know the ins and outs of article titling in detail would only come across an RfC by happenstance but monitor WP:RM. Also, RfCs are much more subject to only those involved in a particular article being aware of it--there are far fewer editors at large who monitor RfCs in general, than there are those who participate in move discussions on article they are uninvolved with. So it is better that all controversial moves be listed at WP:RM. Policy language is always subject to improper treatment as invariable statutes. As Isarra said above though, "having policies with wording that applies best to common cases best such that people have a baseline from which to start, however, should always be best practice, and in the meantime WP:IAR applies to the rest, same as with anything." Adding the language proposed speaks to the rare case and suggests RfCs are just as good a mechanism for debating highly contentious moves as is WP:RM, and that's not true. So I have no problem with a change that suggests WP:RM is not the only possibility but is the preferred and better forum for discussions expected to be contentious, but oppose any language that simply provides other options as if equivalent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording doesn't say "expected to be contentious", it says "Any potentially controversial proposal". Surely it's best to start with the option of talk page discussion, as recommended at RM, and if the issue proves contentious, then take it to RM and accept the delay of at least 7 days, potentially 5 weeks at current backlog, before the move is actioned by an admin. Proving that someone should have expected a move to be contentious just adds another route for argument about editors instead of getting on with improving articles. . . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, you say RM is the "preferred method" - preferred by whom, precisely? Some prefer not to use RM. The current wording makes it sound like they will be risking sanctions if they do not use RM. Yet that is not the case. Why lie to the end editor and confuse them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Keep the policy simple. Use RM for potentially controversial moves. An RM results in an RfC format anyway and it has clear guidance and automation for notifications. Providing another route with RfCs is likely to increase controversy due to inconsistent notification procedures. Jojalozzo 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How you define what moves aren't potentially controversial? This looks like a way of delaying all moves, and wasting admin time. . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RM page provides good guidance on that. "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." To answer your question directly, a potentially controversial move would one for which you have a reason to expect a dispute. Jojalozzo 22:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not suggesting we "provide another route" we are suggesting the currently accepted practice be accurately outlined on the page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any proposed move where more than one editor is likely to oppose the move on some grounds meets this criteria. What we are losing sight here of is our actual title policy WP:AT and its supporting MOS and Naming Conventions that are so conflicted, that just about any rationale for a title change can be supported with some aspect of policy. Our policy makes the likelihood that a title change will be controversial very high. Yet on the other hand, WP:RMCI enjoins admins to close RMs based on policy and consensus. I am a bit baffled by this math This looks like a way of delaying all moves, and wasting admin time. If an RM lasts 7 days and an RFC lasts 30 days, which process delays a title decision longer. Indeed, if an admin must make the title change, which wastes more time—reviewing 7 days of discussion or 30 days of discussion? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RM is a great method. It avoid errors that sometimes happen in other methods. However, it is not the only method and that is falsely stated on policy page. Why are we lying to editors? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming "accepted practice". Using an RfC is clearly not accepted practice for page moves project wide. That is evident in the opposition your proposal is encountering. "Practice exists in the community through consensus" and we're working on consensus right here. Jojalozzo 23:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't at all "clear" that it isn't accepted. In fact, the exact opposite - it is "an accepted mechanism." I'm going by the recent ANI decision and 8 years of Wikipedia experience. Rfc was used before RM ever existed, and while it has flaws (so does RM) it is an accepted method. See dave souza and Eric Navaal on this page for confirming opinions. You may not prefer RM, but that doesn't make it illegal or unaccepted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "illegal" or "unaccepted under the current language, nor is that language a lie. It simply states the typical and reliable way that pages move discussions normally happen, under a method that draws far more people steeped in article titling to it than any other method we might choose, and let's be clear: RfCs alone are a vanishingly rare way of discussing page moves as compared with WP:RM. You happened to cross paths with one editor who treated the language in the policy as a hidebound statute and this is fresh in your mind. Step back and ask yourself how many times has this happened in the past because of this language? Once ever? Never before? The language appears fine as it is to me and we shouldn't be writing policy to address what can best be described as a one-off. But I will nevertheless throw some language out there that wouldn't bother me as a change:

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. In some cases for especially controversial moves or where wide discussion is thought necessary, the requested move discussion can be combined with a request for comment. Though not unprecedented, using an RfC alone for a page move is not recommended as it will not likely draw comment from those most familiar with article titling and tends to reach only those already involved with the page at issue.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting language, but how would it work in practice? Do I open and RM and RFC simultaneously? What if an admin comes along and closes the RM after 7 days one way, and then another editor comes along and closes the RFC after 30 days the opposite of the RM close. Which takes precedent? Do I run an RFC, find an admin to close it with a move decision, then run an RM? What happens if the RM closer decides differently from the RFC? RFCs are useful for sorting out the best choice of alternative titles when there are many possibilities as to what a new title should be. A 30 day discussion among editors familiar with the topic is useful pre-RM. However, once an RFC determines the most appropriate alternative title, the RM process ensures wide-community opportunity for involvement and is supported by instructions and processes that ensure WP:Title policy is adhered to. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted you're offering alternative suggestions, but I'm afraid I agree with Mike that this won't work. The suggested verbiage seems to say that if there is a lot of contention, then there should be both an Rfc and an RM, and the implication seems to be that RM is ok for minor issues, but you should add Rfc for major ones. This is not addressing the concern which is the reason for this Rfc, and it adds, rather than removes, complexity and requirements. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all these changes. I'm comfortable with requiring that any controversial move be advertised at WP:RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

• The point is that the current verbiage is inaccurate. If you don't care for the verbiage I suggested, fine. Work with me here. But those who think I'm suggesting we change anything other than the way things are worded is misunderstanding completely. I'm not suggesting we change current practice, or put RM on the sideline. Secondly, insofar as "preferred method" - well, the preferred method is on the talk page. Next best would be RM and Rfc. Next best (by which I mean things are bad now) is Mediation. And of course the last place anyone wants to be is in some ArbCom ordered vote like Talk:Gdansk/Vote. So no one is saying RM isn't a wonderful solution. We're saying the verbiage on the policy page is, unfortunately, wrong. Let's fix that, shall we? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask and re-ask this question. Before we change policy, Why would we prefer or encourage the use of RFC over RM to make title changes. What advantages does it have? The fact that's it is a method used in the past, does not require us to change policy to encourage it in the future. Why would an RFC be preferred over an RM on an article talk page? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will answer and re answer. I'm NOT talking about changing policy. I'm NOT talking about preferring Rfc over RM. In fact, I'm perfectly fine if you suggest wording which strongly prefers RM over any other method. BUT I'm NOT fine with the current wording, which lies and says RM is the ONLY method. Please let me know if this is still unclear to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, you are talking about changing policy. Currently WP:TITLE says: Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. That's today's policy. You are proposing changing that to add RFCs as a title change process. The fact that title changes have been made by other means is irrelevant. What is relevant to your position is the need to provide some logic as to why the community would want to encourage RFC as a means of making title changes, when an effective RM process exists to do that. What is the advantage of making a title change via RFC instead of RM when in fact both type of discussions occur on the same talk page? That's the relevant question. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and currently the policy page is inaccurate. I don't care if Rfc's are even mentioned. That was just my suggestion. But the words that make it seem like RM is absolutely required need tweaking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "fixing it" and moving away from the long standing custom of using WP to advertise controversial moves. To get a wider participation sometimes moves are also advertised with RFCs, but that does not preclude their listing RM. Two points:
  1. Whatever the reason for starting RM, in less than 24 hours it had already started to become a process that handled controversial moves.[9][10].
  2. At a practical level, after an RfC has run for a month, the bot removes the RfC banner, then what? There is no process in place for deciding who decides if a consensus has been reached, or if the consensus was for moving the page to make the move (thanks to bots messing about, it ie often it is not possible to move a page to a redirect without admin intervention (due to edit histories)). What does an editor do? go to ANI and ask for an administrator to move the page, or go to RM and put in a request? It seems to me that it is simpler to place the initial request into the RM process and allow that process -- that had been tailored to handle moves -- take its course. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we "move away" from RM. I'm suggesting a wording tweak. Please see my explanation to Mike, above. I really don't see why this is being so difficult for me to convey, but apparently I just suck at explaining this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did a user ask you to close the debate? Why did they not post a request at RM a week before the RfC was due to close? Why didn't you advise them to put in a request at RM for the move? I am not at all sure that your nutshell "In a nutshell: having move discussions in places other than FM is being cited as a sanctionable policy violation. Current practice and ANI say it isn't. Can we change the verbiage to reflect that?" at the start of this section is accurate. As far as I can tell no one is suggesting sanctions against you, rather they were asking you to reconsider you move, (or another administrator to revert it) as it had not been listed at RM. In the current policy wording where is the "sanctionable policy violation" described for an administrator who decides to close a move debate that has not been advertised on RM? Also in practice an editor who makes a bold controversial move is not sanctioned, (unless they do it to game the system -- say in the middle of a RM) and even then not for a first offence), instead all that happens is the move is usually reverted and a RM is then initiated. -- PBS (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed verbiage 4

I'm counting dave souza's attempt as 2, and Fuhghettaboutit's as 3.

• What about changing the verbiage from

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.

to

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should seek broad consensus before any change is made. Listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves may be advisable

This avoids any mention of Rfc. Feel free to offer alternate phrasing - perhaps "is advisable" or "is encouraged" etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This addresses my objections in spirit but perhaps not in exact wording. However, as I understand it, the Men's rights move proposal did not follow your proposed rewording since no broad consensus was sought. Would you agree? Jojalozzo 01:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the Men's rights. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing "seek" to "obtain". Then, maybe, "Listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves is recommended to notify editors with article title experience and interest." Jojalozzo

That would work, although I confess "obtain" doesn't quite flow for me... maybe "arrive at" or "achieve". But yes, your wording would work too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't agree with that change. RM is a specific process that appears on a list frequented by people who are often well versed in that specific process. It's the best and most obvious place for a desired move to be listed. I've found myself mildly frustrated on occasion in the past for missing a move discussion where I felt I had valuable input because it wasn't done as an RM and thus didn't appear on the RM list. Refining the system into specialised parts is a good thing, I don't think it's advisable to encourage using the broad tool of RFC to address something specific like move requests when we already have a specialised Move Request tool to accomplish just that; removing the strong suggestion to use RM in the wording would be a movement in the wrong direction. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're NOT looking to add Rfc specifically, how many times do I have to say this??? Seriously. It isn't even in the verbiage you're responding to, at all. Not looking to replace RM, either. Just looking to tweak the verbiage so it does not use the word "should" which is strongly prescriptive and implies this is the only possibility. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"List all potentially controversial title changes at Wikipedia:Requested moves to notify editors with article title experience and interest."? Jojalozzo 02:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested revision:

Do not implement potentially controversial proposals to change a title without broad consensus. List potentially controversial title changes at Wikipedia:Requested moves to notify editors with article title experience and interest.

Jojalozzo 15:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, but instead of the bare "list all" what do you think of dave souza's tweak of Fuhget's proposal "strongly reccommended". That seems stronger wording to me than beginning with "List all.." which does not stress that RM is the much preferred approach as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we must recommend then "strongly recommend" would be my preference. But didn't my version's imperative voice seem compelling enough? :-) Jojalozzo 21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed verbiage 5

Well, one way to address the issue KillerChihuahua perceives as a problem, is simply to start the existing sentence with "It is recommended that any potentially..." This keeps in the strong language but would not allow by a fair reading the charge which led here that the policy expressly only allows moves to be discussed at WP:RM. As above, I don't think there is actually an issue with the current language, but I don't think this change introduces any problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is recommended" would indeed address the issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with "recommended". This is the policy document for titles. If everything's going to be recommended, the page should immediately be made a style guide. Tony (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We see on this very page, under Treatment of alternative names the words "alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter " Recommended is not a word to avoid, it is a word to use accurately. And this is a policy page about RM, which is not required. Recommended is apt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...as well as Images, Edit warring, and Proposed deletion, Bot policy, Harassment, and probably others, as well as the blocking policy, which i find most similar to this situation. Undoing another admin's block is, as we all know, a very bold move indeed. It is not prohibited, but it is a serious matter. Yet the instructions on Blocking policy say " If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Now that is a serious situation, and yet it is only "recommended". I suggest that even a very strongly adhered to standard may be correctly described as "recommended." I think Fuhghettaboutit has suggested an excellent choice of phrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fuhghettaboutit's phrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a considerable improvement. The full wording could be reviewed if #Proposal for considering uncontroversial title changes gains consensus. . . dave souza, talk 07:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Most Strongly Oppose - This suggests that it's okay to make a change that is potentially controversial without consensus. It only "recommends" getting consensus. It's contrary to the spirit of the project and will lead to disruption. Jojalozzo 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't. Consensus is always required. There are multiple ways of arriving at consensus, but in no case is it optional, and the verbiage does not say anything of the sort. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"charge which led here that the policy expressly only allows moves to be discussed at WP:RM" Please could you provide a diff where this charge was made. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the ANI discussion that brings us here? How can I provide one diff when that was the tenor of the entire discussion? Okay well, from the opening post of that discussion "...but the participants in this recent RFC ignored the established principle in titling policy at WP:TITLE: all moves that are likely to be controversial should be processed through the formal procedures laid out at WP:RM." (boldface in original).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that, and my understanding was not that discussion on a talk page which are controversial should only be advertised on RM, but they ought to be advertised at RM -- something that does not seem unreasonable to me. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to me the better wording until now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... why are we seeing undiscussed changes, as though there are six cooks in a small kitchen. Well, there have been multiple spillages and burnings, so please slow down. Kim B, no, that's not good wording. May I remind editors that this is a central policy page specifically marked out for ArbCom discretionary sanctions (notice is at top of talkpage), and subject to rulings about discussing first, editing later. Tony (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count three, not six - and Kim's edit isn't even in the same area. Please AGF. I am certain everyone is trying to ensure this policy is as well written as possible, and no one has made more than one edit. There is no need to remind experienced editors of DS when there is very active discussion ongoing, and no edit warring in sight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to work out what was deficient with the wording. I can find nothing to recommend the hasty and ill-considered edits over the past day or two. Tony (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your struggle seems to arise from a failure to see that the wording is ambiguous: "should" was probably taken by many editors as a recommendation, a perception reinforced by the sensible guidance at WP:RM and WP:MOVE which differ from the wording in this policy. Unfortunately "should" can be read as prescriptive, and give the misleading impression that RM is the only permitted venue. See below. . dave souza, talk 07:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RM is not the venue the talk page is the venue, and although it can be advertised in other places it should (also) be advertised at RM. As I asked before if there is a debate on a page move that is not advertised at RM, what is the mechanism for deciding on the consensus and who makes the move (Given that we frequently see editors complaining about the judgement of a neutral administrator who makes a move at RM)? Or put another way, RM has rules and presidents that have developed over time -- such as moving a page back if moved during a debate so that malignant editors making pre-emptive moves can not then argue that you need a consensus to move it back -- if the move is not advertised at RM then do RM rules apply? -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second PBS here. RM is a talk page discussion. It is an established process that ensures title changes are made consistent with title policy and community consensus. It is supported by a long-standing, well thoughtout set of closing instructions and a more recent community established review process. No one in this and the discussions above and below has yet to establish any advantage for conducting title changes via other talk page discussions. Until such time as such advantages (if any) are clearly understood, we should not be changing title policy to encourage any other type of title change discussion in lieu of RM.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, no one is even trying to say that RM isn't the best way. I have no idea how you could still be misunderstanding this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section under discussion is Considering title changes, but up until Kim's edit the section dealt only with controversial or potentially controversial title changes. This effectively contradicted both WP:RM and WP:MOVE, both of which give sensible guidance on less controversial changes. My proposal is that wording from these guidelines be adapted as introductory paragraphs to the #Considering title changes section, proposed wording follows. dave souza, talk 07:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any autoconfirmed user can use the [move] tab located at the top of any page to perform most moves (see Wikipedia:Moving a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this. Sometimes technical reasons will prevent a move: see Requesting technical moves.

If you believe the move might be controversial, consider using the {{movenotice}} template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page in order to reach a consensus. If there is an existing article at the target title or there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if someone reasonably disagrees with the move, it should be treated as controversial.

No, it didn't contradict MOVE or RM, because it dealt only with controversial moves. As you say, we already have those two pages that provide the guidance: we don't need it repeated here because it's not suited to being policy. It's not suited to be being policy because in my mind it is first, because this page is only going to be used in resolving disputes over pagemoves, which are controversial cases, and not for guidance on uncontroversial moves; second, an uncontroversial move can be performed in any number of ways and proper guidance is necessary on using the correct one - so for example the summary above mentions technical moves but really impels the reader to read that as well because it doesn't give any indication of what these reasons are. In other words, the conscientious mover is already obliged by the summary to read the other information provided. But I have to say that first and foremost this page is going to be cited when someone makes a move like that and they get reverted, or during a move discussion. Clear guidance at this stage is necessary, not a proliferation of options and other things to read. There will always be more guidance, but this should be policy. However, there might be some merit in mentioning the movenotice specifically. (The second part of that paragraph, less so, because we already have guidance here.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, the primary problem was that the paragraph was headed Considering title changes, and if it doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. Policy should be descriptive, and at the least should indicate where editors can get guidance: if it says editors can do something, it doesn't compel them to do it. Also, this page is likely to be used by editors wondering what names are suitable even when there's no dispute. Anyway, more concise wording linking to the guidance would be welcome, as long as it is clear where to get guidance as to whether or not a title is controversial.. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to require the additional burden of a second talk page discussion before moving a page. In actual practice, there may not be anyone participating in the move discussion who is knowledgeable about the subject matter of the article itself; the decision and any associated rearrangement of disambiguation pages is then based on MoS and other policy considerations. Of course, more discussion is always better than less, and moves go more smoothly when there are several editors who have reached a consensus and can present the reasons for the move succinctly in terms of WP:TITLE when the RM is initiated, but this is not always possible and should not be mandated by policy. Neotarf (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any change to this section other than maybe the section heading. If it needs to include the words potentially controversial or controversial then fine, that will make everyone feel better. The real issue here is that any proposed title change that is likely to be opposed by an editor for any reason (and there are loads of them in our conflicting title policy) is potentially controversial and should go through the WP:RM process. Any attempt to circumvent that process does harm to WP. If WP:Title contradicts WP:RM and WP:MOVE--a process and how-to guideline, then they need changing, not the policy. The fact that one admin resolved an ANI which was essentially a pissing match between two editors, by saying an RFC was OK, does not require us to change policy to encourage that. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is talking about changing policy Mike. The issue is with the word "should" which can be taken to mean different things. Please abstian from your unfortunately inaccurate beliefs about why we're here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually kidding. Right? If we removed the word should (regardless of how anyone interprets what that means) from the policy that RM is the process to take potentially controversial or controversial title changes and replace it with words that encourage alternative methods, then we are changing the policy. Wouldn't you concede that? BTW, why can't anyone answer the question: What advantage does an alternate form of talk page discussion have in title changes over the current RM process? If we are going to encourage an alternate process, we ought to be able to tell editors why one process is better than another? BTW, (probably the wrong place to ask) but why is Men's rights still at Men's rights when you closed the RFC as Result of the discussion is to Move (rename); regarding the other items, the result is slightly less clear. There seems to be broad general support for the suggested changes, but there is considerably less discussion and views are not as clear. I suggest you move the article, ... I suggest the editor you were telling to move the article doesn't have the necessary permission to do so because of an existing redirect and the apparent need for a history merge. It was your responsibility to move the article and do all the necessary clean-up. You would have not gotten away with that if this title change had been accomplished thru RM WP:RMCI is clear on that. So now that this article title change has been discussed via RFC, who is responsible for doing the work? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative methods exist, policies should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The word "should" can be taken as a strong recommendation, which is reasonable: it shouldn't be hard to say concisely why it's the best procedure, which would be helpful to editors. dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike: You're right, this is the wrong place to discuss Men's rights. The editor asked me to close the Rfc (I never "told" anyone to do anything) is an admin, and can certainly move it herself. Why are you even bringing this up? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Please confine your discussion here to the wording of the policy page. Going off on tangents isn't helping a bit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to drag this further offtrack, but wanted to reply to Mike. There's no need for a histmerge. In fact, since Men's rights and Men's rights movement have substantially overlapped in their histories, the results of a histmerge would be pointlessly confusing. This type of situation is explicitly warned against in the histmerge instructions. The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama. (No content from the history of Men's rights movement is used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it was mostly all copied from Men's rights to begin with.) An appropriate solution would be moving what is currently at Men's rights movement to Talk:Men's rights movement/oldhistory, and then moving what is currently at Men's rights to Men's rights movement. None of these actions require advanced permissions - I am not an admin on ENWP, and could carry that set of moves out myself perfectly fine. I guess moving the archived pages could be a bit of a pain in the ass without a sysop bit (unless they move automatically for non-sysops, which they might, I'm not sure,) but that'd probably only take five minutes or so to do. Tangentially, there were at least three admins participating in the RfC anyway, so there are plenty of people with sysop bits on that page.

I would suggest that KC has acted appropriately in not carrying out a move, at least so far. (Actually, more than that, I would suggest that acting differently would've been inappropriate.) Men's rights has yet to be updated to be an appropriate article for the title Men's rights movement - a process that will require at least going through the article and changing a few words as well as writing a new lede (or updating the lede.) None of that will take a terribly long time, but is something best left to a content contributor. Once the necessary minimal updating is done, the updater could handle the page move themselves, or could ask KC for help. It would be a bit confusing if the article was moved as-is with no changes at all, and given how controversial the article has been, I would prefer if someone involved in making recent admin decisions about the article didn't try to start making content decisions, even if they are minor ones. (The reason I haven't done it myself yet is just that I'm currently in a real-world time crunch. If no one beats me to it, once I am out of this time crunch, I'll do it myself.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: amend section title to "Considering potentially controversial title changes"

As above, since the section doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can concur with changing the section heading. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would certainly be more accurate, unless we take Kim's approach and discuss other title changes briefly before discussing contentious and problematic ones. It still leaves the "should" word in place, which is the entire reason I am here. I still like "recommended" as Fuget suggested - that is the verbiage used when advising admins to discuss undoing another admin's block, which is certainly more serious than this. In fact, it is almost always considered wheel warring and has resulted in de-adminning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking it step at a time, if we change the title we can consider having a "for|uncontroversial changes|" header to the section which would point to advice without restating it. Agree about "recommended", indeed "strongly recommended" would be clearer and more accurate than the rather ambiguous "should". In Beeb English, "Should is used to give advice and make recommendations and to talk about obligation, duty and what is expected to happen. Reference is to the present and the future. Should is similar to must but is not as strong as must." . . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a step so much as a different issue; should non controversial title changes be briefly mentioned before instructions on controversial one? If yes, then the Kim Bruning (with verbiage tweaks, etc.) If no, then this suggestion, sure, it will make it more accurate. I'm not saying Kim didn't have a good idea, noticing that the title didn't reflect the content of thta section. I'm just saying this is a different issue from the reason this Rfc was opened. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What would we do about the last two paragraphs which do not concern controversial changes:

"In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd (which is the current name of Stalingrad).

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."

Jojalozzo 21:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this articlepolicy without discussion to obtain consensus may subject you to discretionary sanction. Please see the notice at the top of this page. Jojalozzo 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "policy" rather than "article". I see nothing at the moment that could warrant such an intervention, unless ArbCom is out to make self-fulfilling prophecies. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the fact has already been addressed above, in the section "Bulls in a china shop..." and discussed. Any particular reason you're bringing it up again, especially since no policy page edits have been made since then and that was less than 24 hours ago? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're replying to me. I thought an explicit reminder would be helpful, primarily to newcomers to the discussion. I also disagree with your statement that experienced editors don't need such reminders. Jojalozzo 19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far there are no new editors, and no one has reverted a single time, and the notice is at the top of the page, and I trust experienced editors to actually read such notices. I guess I have more respect for the average editor's competence. You may be right, however. I have been told I am too quick to presume others' care and competence, and certainly there are at least a few editors who don't bother to read the notices. I still fail to see why you're warning a second time about something which is not even happening, nor even any indications it might happen. Again, no one has made any sanctionable edits, no one has reverted, and except for some minor incivility the discussion is going well, with people expressing their views and trying to work towards consensus. But I'm not worried about it, I was just asking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree that things have not progressed that far but undiscussed edits during consensus building is disruptive. I'm hoping we can keep the edits on the talk page until we've reached agreement. Jojalozzo 19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]