This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 4 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion
I think that WP:RM/TR requests should be recorded on the article talk page. Proposed moves, recorded at WP:RM/TR, sometimes are not well informed, or even in good faith, and some notification of the proposal and action really should be posted on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, no objection to this, so long as it's done by a bot or some other automated process that doesn't require effort from the user. It's (I think?) the responsibility of the implementer to make sure that a technical request really is technical, but some additional scrutiny on the talk page for cases like what you mention could be useful in case they miss something. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
A bot-based method might be a solution. Alternative ideas include changing the working of the WP:RM/TR process to:
(i) The requester uses a template on the article talk page, not directly at WP:RM/TR. The WP:RM/TR log then exists on the article talk page. Actually, this should be easy to implement, given that the WP:RM/TR currently creates no logs. This method would increase transparency for article watchers, over the current system where the RM/TR requester's name never appears on the article or its talk page watchlist, and it would greatly simplify the process and running record where a RM/TR request is declined, and the requester wants to change it to a standard RM proposal.
Query - on a related note, I see the "permalinks" were removed from the RM/TR template by JJMC89 in February. I assume from the edit summary, "{{REVISIONID}} no longer works", that there was a technical issue with it, but IMHO those links were extremely useful for editors attempting to track the original rationale for the "uncontroversial" move. Is there no way we can reinstate them? — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I've installed a hack which allows them to work again. Since {{REVISIONID}} doesn't work anymore on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but {{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests}} does work on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Permalink I've created that new subpage and have installed a bot to keep it updated. This is a bold implementation under WP:IAR to fix a previously accepted process that was broken by the MediaWiki developers. I will be filing a bot request for approval soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So tell me a better way to solve the problem. Every solution proposed I've seen so far is a lousy hack. wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The lousy hack, from my perspective, is using {{REVISIONID}} to detect preview mode. {{REVISIONID}} should be the ID of the last edit made before the edit you are previewing and about to save, not the edit you haven't even saved yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: what I mean is that this is building a process for others, that is dependent on you - but there is never a guarantee that you will make another edit - at which point the process that others become reliant upon will collapse. — xaosfluxTalk11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: exactly. The entire WP:Requested moves process for centralizing the discussions will collapse without my bot. It's all dependent on someone else taking over the bot to keep it going. I publish the source code to allow for the possibility for someone else to keep it going. Meanwhile the guy at the top of this list gets all sorts of credit from the national press for being some sort of important figure in Wikipedia's infrastructure when mostly what he is doing is making "cosmetic" {{authority control}} additions. Few would feel the impact if he stopped editing like they would if I did. Bluerasberry interviewed me in Boston last November for a possible Signpost profile. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying is a bad design principal - a community wide process shouldn't depend on specific editors making future edits. — xaosfluxTalk12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The bad design principle is that the Foundation is not answerable to the community, so the community can only beg once a year for a "wishlist" of support for community-wide processes, rather than hire someone to maintain the bots. If the community could hire someone, then they could hire a replacement when that someone left. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this specific "permalink problem" something that is specific to an English Wikipedia community process - why can't we fix our process? — xaosfluxTalk15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Eight of nine still work. I don't understand why this "miser" fix didn't break all of them. Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}} magic word for indicating whether in preview mode? Or give me a {{PREVIOUSREVISIONID}} magic word because that's all I need. The permalinks the process is getting from the page my bot writes are just the permalink from the last time Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests was saved. I have no need to know whether I'm in preview mode, so no need to determine the revision ID before the page is saved. Just make the software pull it up after the fact.
The process was broken for three months. I did fix it. Again, if you have a better way to fix it, show me. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Test #1 (parser fn.): {{subst:REVISIONID:Wikipedia talk:Requested moves}}
Test #2 (magic word): {{subst:REVISIONID}}
This is a big tease. With test #1 I see the revision ID 986305315 in preview mode, while in test #2 I don't. But after the page is saved I don't see either. If I perform test #1 on any page other than this one, then the revision ID is saved to the page. You don't think this is rather hacky behavior? wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that the whole wanting to know a revisionID is only because we built a workflow that uses that - we don't have to use that in a workflow. — xaosfluxTalk16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Why isn't there a {{PREVIEW}} magic word for indicating whether in preview mode. There is, and it's called {{REVISIONID}}, which counterintuitively still works for detecting preview mode, even though it doesn't give a revision ID. Even more counterintuitively, the behavior of the magic word is different on talk namespaces and non-talk namespaces:
If you specify a page other than the page you are currently viewing, it produces the revision ID of that page.
Otherwise, If you are in preview (or another preview-like situation such as the visual editor) it produces the empty string.
Otherwise, If you are on a talk page, it produces an actual revision ID.
Otherwise, it produces the string -.
This means that you can use {{REVISIONID}} to detect whether you are in preview, to calculate the revision ID of a different page (or the current page if it is in the talk namespace), but not the calculate the revision ID of the current page if it is not in the talk namespace. It also means (I think) that this bot task could have been implemented on top of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 3, at the cost of only updating once an hour. (I'm not seriously suggesting this, just pointing it out) * Pppery *it has begun...17:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So if we don't really need it, and you don't think being without it for three months was really a problem, then why the concern that it will break if I stop editing? Since we don't really need it. wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this task stopped temporarily last night when my computer went to sleep. I've modified its Windows Task Scheduler configuration to wake the computer, so hopefully that won't happen again. RMCD bot already was waking the computer every 15 minutes; now this task should wake it every 10 seconds. Fortunately my machine is immune to sleep deprivation. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, one more scheduling glitch worked out. The permalink updating task was down for 24 hours after I had to reboot my computer yesterday. It was only configured in Windows Task Scheduler to start when the task was created or modified. Now it's also configured to start at system startup. Hopefully that's the last kink needing to be worked out. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Still working out the kinks to ensure that this bot stays up 24×7. There was another period of downtime today. wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I have all the kinks worked out, so it should be fairly reliable now. Allowing for occasional one-offs such as time needed to reboot my system after software updates, local power outages or temporary loss of my Internet connection. I'm not familiar with toolforge operations, so there would be a learning curve in my making that transition. I'm more comfortable on Windows than Linux. But, if someone else wanted to set up a redundant bot for backup purposes on the toolserver, I have no objections. I've published the source code. There would be no harm with both bots running other than extra hits to the MediaWiki servers; if the page didn't need to be updated, then neither bot would update it. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Requested move template rejected on this page
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm told I have to use it on this talk page, but the instructions say to use it in the WP-space page. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The multi-RM template is used on the talk page of the first article in the list of ones you want to move. Where are the instructions confusing? We can fix. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
How to add a curent requested move?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Here is a list of current discussions, how do I add one exactly?
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I unintentionally created one very uncomfortable situation by mistakenly not using this page to propose one move. I feel quite horrible about this and I wanted to ask if you can give us any good advice what to do or propose where I can ask for additional feedback/ideas. The article in question is Talk:Vukovar-Syrmia County#RfC on Proposal to rename article. Again apologies for the whole situation and apologies for specific case/issue question on the general discussion page.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Problem with moving a page
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"What you gonna do?" cannot be moved to "What You Gonna Do???", because the title "What You Gonna Do???" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Analogous to "Open source" the title should be "Inner source", not "Inner Source". However, there is already a redirect in the opposite direction.
--Michaeldorner (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Move Heery International to
Cbre Heery, Inc. Company was renamed, as reflected in article text. I don't have permission to edit the requested moves page. Lynneberg (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Cleveland Ballet, about a ballet company that was active for forty years and is still clearly the primary topic, was moved by a new editor and enthusiast of the current ballet company in Cleveland, with no discussion. Since there are no instructions for requesting a revert (and I can't overwrite the redirects her move created), I put in a plain old RM; but it would be good if we could document a process for requesting reversions of things like this. TJRC (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I recently got trial approval for a bot to fix links to articles before/after page moves. In cases of double redirects, there are bots like russBOT, who do the link fixing completely automatically. But there are certain instances where we have to fix links manually. If you come across such instances, please let me know here (by pinging me) or at my talkpage; and I will fix the links using the bot. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk)08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
I think template renames belong at WP:TfD. Naming conventions (the obsession of RM regulars) do not apply to templates. Templates are technical, and changes can have wider impact, and the expertise for this can be best found at WP:TfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If we take that RM as an example, could you explain what technical expertise is needed by the participation in that discussion? --Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a question to ask at WT:TfD! You have a lot more template editing experience than me. Do you want to tell us that template expertise is unimportant when it comes to renaming them? I think that for most editors, the most who do not edit templates, editing templates should be done with caution, especially when the template has 60k translusions. And am I wrong to suspect that this transclusion count does not include nested use, or subst'ed use by bots. There's also consistency amongst template nomenclature that might be considered important, and which forum is more likely to involve people with that familiarity, WP:RM or WP:TFD? TFD is for discussing templates. CFD is for discussing categories. XfD, where D=Discussion, is suitable for rename discussions. In 2015 a problem editor wrote, without discussion, the instruction to send template renames to RM, and I think there was no good reason for it, and some reasons why not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on the matter as a whole, but I'm a little confused about some of your statement above - we're not talking about editing a template, we're talking about naming a template. You talk about "people with lots of template experience," but from what I've seen in past discussions it's the people without that technical knowledge that claim to benefit from these changes. Keeping with the example above, someone without a tech or programming background might not know that "sup" means "superscript", but just about everyone knows what the latter term means. There's also the argument of "what's the point, everyone's going to just use {{sup}} anyway", but if that were the case we would have templates like {{citation needed}} at {{cn}} and loads more people would be confused. Anyone should be able to go to a template page and have at least a vague idea of what it's doing. Clicking on {{cn}} will take you to a page called "citation needed", which even a complete rube should be able to piece together means that it indicates a citation is needed. I could go on, but this is a discussion about where to hold these discussions, not about naming conventions themselves. Names should be clear and obvious; technical experience isn't necessary.And to reply to your question am I wrong to suspect that this transclusion count..., you are partially incorrect; uses subst'd by a bot are no longer transcluded and so will not show up in a transclusion count, but for example the 45k uses of {{ill}} are included in the 77k transclusions of {{interlanguage link}}. Not really sure how that's relevant but there's your answer. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Re nested use, the primary name of the template does include nested use, but the redirects do not. Thus, if a template is moved, and newer usages use that template directly (and redirects are changed), those usages will no longer show up as transclusions for the old name. This could affect bots checking for transclusions of a template, but I don't think TfD often makes these considerations either. RMs are of course only publicised, so they could be held at TfD and advertised at WP:RM as now to achieve the best of both worlds, but this would mean asking the botop to make a change to the bot (and probably some implementation in Twinkle, for easier use). Alternatively, just have a bot advertise them at TfD and close them after 7 days, though that may be a bit unusual. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
I'm not sure this has been brought up before, but I've noticed we've seen more requests to move pages where the nominator proposes a move because they don't like the current title but don't propose a new title. (See Talk:List_of_prominent_operas#Requested_move_10_July_2020 for an example.) It seems many of these requests go nowhere because there is a never a consensus reached on a new title. I think it might be time to consider disallowing such requests and encourage a discussion about alternative titles before launching a formal RM. Calidum15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This non-authoritative discussion a few months ago. I don't see anything else in the past year and a half or so. I think it's reasonable to encourage a discussion first but I do not think it makes sense to disallow such requests. Sometimes you get no-one to participate on the talk page and sometimes you can't come to consensus with the people on the talk page and inviting the rest of the community is certainly preferable in those contexts. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree they should be prohibited. It’s kind of like nominating a candidate without specifying anyone. What’s the point? RM discussions should be about whether the proposed title meets CRITERIA better than the current title. You can’t even have that discussion without a specific proposed title. I will reconsider if someone provides examples of where such RMs have been effective. —-В²C☎17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I see RMs as a formal process for deciding on a new title. Sure, in the vast majority of cases, the editor who initiates it presents a single definite proposal, and then the other participants line up to either support or oppose it. But why should this be presented as the norm and everything else discouraged? All other formal discussion venues that I know have constraints on what can be discussed, but never so far as to constrict discussions to binary choices. For example, it's perfectly normal to start an AfD about an article you're convinced shouldn't exist, while remaining agnostic on whether it should be deleted, turned into a redirect, or userfied. Similarly for RMs you can, for example, identify an article that is not a primary topic, make your case and then leave it to others to decide on the secondary question of what the article's new title should be. And if we required an informal discussion to decide on the best title proposal, then that discussion would usually reach some sort of consensus for a new title and there wouldn't be a need for a subsequent RM, would there? – Uanfala (talk)18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Have you looked at the RM backlog lately? RMs without a specific proposal are less likely to be resolved. The reason for such a prohibition would be to discourage RMs less likely to be resolved.
A consensus for a new title in an informal unlisted discussion does not have to be listed at RM unless the new title is potentially controversial. If it is potentially controversial then it has to be listed at RM before it is moved. —В²C☎14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think disallowing such requests would be necessary even though I agree they're more difficult to deal with than cases where the proposer does propose a specific title. Moving for disambiguation is a common time this occurs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Disallow. A formal rename request without a specified target is not a formal rename request, but a discussion starter. It should be just an ordinary talk page thread to discuss the title. Where such a faulty proposal proceeds to an apparent consensus, it was not sufficiently advertised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hosting single page move in a different talk page don't work
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The RM that led to the creation of WP:Requested moves § Single page move on a different talk page is here. I'm not keen to see this instruction creep, which confused you. We might be better off just to remove that section. Personally, I feel like moves of project subpages are kind of beyond the scope of requested moves. You could probably just have a local discussion on the project's main talk page and come to a consensus among project members rather than advertise it to a wider audience of editors here, most who probably won't care what the project decides to do internally. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Closed by Anthony Appleyard @ 12:28, 6 September 2020. Hmm, I recall just recently moving University of The Bahamas, which wasn't mentioned in the RM, that I had not noticed.
Already covered in the RM discussion. Repeat: If MoS, AT, or a similar page lists a specific, unusual exception to a general rule, then it is a specific exception, not a new "general anti-rule". The very purpose of the "not 'The Netherlands'" example is to hammer home the point that "The Hague" being an exception does not mean "make up more exceptions". That one is an exception because it is almost universally written The Hague in reliable sources, while virtually none of them write "The Netherlands" or "The Bahamas" except at the beginning of a sentence or heading/title. Been over all this already. Cf. WP:NOTGETTINGIT. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: The faulty move to "University of The Bahamas" needs to be undone, since it's against the guidelines, is a WP:CONSISTENT failure, is against the consensus (albeit not a very large discussion) on its own talk page, and against the not moved reaffirmation in this flag-of case. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Guidance on repeat RMs and moratoriums between RMs?
Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Is there any guidance published anywhere on when repeat RMs (a new RM soon after one on same article was closed) are allowed and/or discouraged and under what circumstances? I know informally at least most long term participants seems to think there should be at least 6 months if not a year between RMs, presumably with certain exceptions. But is this published anywhere? If not should it be? If so, where? —В²C☎16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I would be wary of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. This does not seem to be a problem in my experience. On the rare occasions when someone has attempted such an RM without good reason, it's usually shut down fairly quickly. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes and that can be problematic. If vague implied rules are actually being enforced documenting them for clear guidance is not creep. —В²C☎20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
A repeat with an identical RM to one recently closed after a clear consensus or a very lengthy discussion that stalled should be frowned upon. However a new, different RM taking into account the discussion in the recently closed RM may be good. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The difference between moves and deletions is that deletion is a yes/no choice, while moves may be multiple choice. Sometimes the initial request isn't the best option, and if a better option doesn't surface until late in a discussion it can be hard to pivot to that in the first discussion. In these cases, I think opening a new request for the better option after a short wait can be OK. But yes, frequently reopening requests to move something like Kiev to Kyiv should be considered disruptive. You need to allow sufficient time for consensus to change, lacking an "event" that causes consensus to change "overnight". – wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
XfD is not always binary. RMs are usually “do something” vs “status quo”. Very similar. What is more similar is that banging on repeatedly, not listening to others, becomes disruptive. Also, what I think is important, is that a poor opening statement is the biggest culprit for non-productive discussions. And a good opening statement summarises the previous discussions and why this discussion is different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kiev/Kyiv is a good example. The nom points out how RS have recently shifted but much of the opposition seems to miss that. If this closes no consensus again it doesn’t seem right to require waiting another year. But we have no guidance on how to decide. Not to mention that a discussion about a preemptive moratorium has already been closed. Is that legit? Again, no guidance. The case I am thinking about is Parasite (film). I supported that move but I can see a new/better argument made for reversing that move. I would oppose it but I think it deserves to be heard. Yet it would probably be SNOW shut down as “too soon”. I’d like to see guidance that allowed repeat RMs with new/fresh arguments. —В²C☎22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiev-Kyiv? It’s still open, Talk:Kiev#Requested_move_28_August_2020, no? 1. Don’t come to policy pages to canvass. (People watching policy pages are not representative). If it closes “no” or “no consensus”, note how much wasted effort has been sunk, hugely distracting to productive editing. This title choice hurts no reader. Low quality subsequent move proposals should be banned, and in fact that sort of thing has resulted in blocks before. Wait six months, and even then, a new proposal has to be a better proposal than any preceding proposal. Address the reasons why people weren’t convinced before. Anything less, and you are disrespecting the previous participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is canvassing for anything here. This discussion is about whether we should publish guidance on repeat RMs anc moratoriums, not what we think such guidance should say. —В²C☎23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I also don't think it's a good idea to have explicit guidelines apart from WP:CCC. If we leave it to people to exercise their common sense, they probably will. And I don't think time elapsed since previous RM is the most relevant factor, it's far more significant how much has changed and what different arguments have been presented this time round. If we told people to start new RMs only after six months, then we will on one hand be adding legimitacy to the practice of starting a new RM every six months until the particular configuration of participants is such that the proposal passes, and on the other hand making it easier for people to shut down new discussions in situations where such new discussions may be warranted. – Uanfala (talk)00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I agree with all of that. Telling people to wait a precise amount of time has seen yet another poor RM discussion immediately after that time. Better to say “slow down”. Hasty renomination repeating the same arguments is well agreed to be disruptive. I think insisting that the next RM briefly summarise all previous RMs is a good way to slow down impetuous repeat RMs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This is what I mean. Everyone agrees hasty RMs “repeating the same arguments” is a problem. But what if the new RM is presented with a compelling new argument? By today’s unwritten rules no distinction is made. “Too soon”, period. And the new RM is hatted. Sure, if for most participants their policy-based arguments are just rationalizations of JDLI it doesn’t matter, but I’m not that cynical about us. We can do better. We should do better. —-В²C☎05:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Ask the closer of the previous RM. Expect that in the case of repeated contentious RMs, they are not being closed by non-admins. Ask (and answer), why does it need to be "fixed" in the short term? Read WP:TITLECHANGES a few times over. A short explicit statement summarising each of the previous RMs, and another on why this one is different. If the RMs have a history of dominating the talk page, use a subpage. Note that "compelling" means that it compels someone else, not just yourself. Getting a seconder to co-sign will always help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Mr close review requested
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The closer of an MR requested input at an AN here:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since an RfC has been suggested by myself and others, instead of repeated RMs creating inconsistency, I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion on how to proceed. I have a low success rate in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs. @BarrelProof, Roman Spinner, and Levivich: Would any of you be willing to help me craft a unbiased RfC for this? I think the best place to do this is at the village pump but we should agree on a good primer and question. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, ha, I promise you I have a lower rate of success in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs than you do :-) I think it's a great idea, though, and I'd be happy to help. Are you aware of the experimental "get help drafting RfCs" program going on at WT:RFC? Maybe that's a good place to go? Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about asking people that have not been around the subject about neutrality of the question. Here is my first crack at a simple question:
Question: In cases where the death has been ruled a homicide by a medical examiner or similar expert, should articles titled "Shooting of [name]" be renamed "Killing of [name]" (or something else) even if the shooter has not been charged or convicted of a crime?
Primer: Many of these articles are police-involved shootings. COMMONNAME has been an unfruitful guide in previous RMs because in most cases both "shooting of" and "killing of" have been commonly used in RS to describe the events. Arguments for CONSISTENCY have won out in these discussions to keep the titles at "Shooting of [name]". This RfC aims to determine if there is consensus to consistently rename all such articles as "Killing of [name]"
We can also give people options instead of insisting on a yes/no !vote for "Killing of [name]"
===="Shooting of [name]"====
===="Fatal shooting of [name]"====
===="Killing of [name]"====
===="Death of [name]"====
====Other titles not listed above====
====Further discussion===
Before posting an RfC, we should indeed achieve a mini-consensus regarding the form of the proposed main title header. There may be agreement that the handful of headers describing non-fatal shooting can remain at "Shooting of..." The fatal shootings that have resulted in murder convictions already are or should be at "Murder of..."
For all the remaining fatal shootings, we could submit two possibilities and await consensus — move those headers to "Fatal shooting of..." or move them to the already-existing form "Killing of...". The header "Death of..." is much too general and all-inclusive, having been also used for non-violent historical events such as Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or Death of Michael Jackson. Other contributors to this discussion will certainly explore every alternative option. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there is clear consensus to keep non-fatal shootings as is. If no one else objects, I have no problem limiting to just "Fatal shooting" or "Killing of" and not mentioning "Death of" as an option. I agree with you that it "is much too general and all-inclusive".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Coffeeandcrumbs, I've had success going to the WP:Village pump (idea lab) as a place to stage major RfCs before they're launched. If you want to prepare it on a subpage, I recently created {{Draft RfC}} which may be a handy banner to place at top.
One way to structure things might be to make the question something like "What should be our naming standards for articles about the death of a person?" Then propose two or three different standards, some of which allow renaming to titles like "killing of" or even "murder of" sooner, whereas others adopt a more conservative approach, sticking with "death of" until there is a lot of evidence it was specifically a killing or a murder. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if this RfC is big enough to require its own subpage. But if others think we need one I will be sure to use your suggestions.
As for the question, that is not bad idea. Perhaps we can propose two or three different flowcharts for determining a naming scheme for all death related articles and ask editors to choose from among them. The flowchart could even include examples of actual articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
A flow chart of a sorts is absolutely needed as this is a strong area where BLP can be easily tripped with the wrong title. "Has the cause of death been ascertained?" "Has that cause of death been directly tied to the intentional action of another person?" "Has that person been convicted on that action?" etc. type questions. In other words, what might be better is not to run an RFC yet but to set up this flow chart, with input, and then run an RFC saying "Is there consensus to use this flowchart in aiding in the determination of naming of "death of X" type articles?" which ends up as a simple yes/no/more feedback situation. -Masem (t) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, nice work on the chart! I can see a few possible exceptions, though. For instance, not all natural causes deaths are going to be "Death of [name]"; they might instead be something like "Drowning of [name]". {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Chart As IsThank you Coffeeandcrumbs! The chart makes sense and does not overly complicate the title naming process. An encyclopedia needs consistency and simplicity w/o sacrificing accuracy. Causes of death not on the chart can be covered in the lead of the subject articles. Murder is unlawful killing, thus someone does not "murder" unless a court adjudicates the matter, regardless of common usage. Trying to determine commonality of usage by sources is time wasting and often an inexact endeavor. Continuing ad hoc decisions on retitling (moving) a title has obviously been inconsistent. Without the consistent naming of articles readers will continue to wonder if article naming reflects some ulterior motives (e.g. an article regarding killing of a black man by white men is titled "shooting"-Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery while killing of a black man by a white cop is titled "killing"-Killing of Rayshard Brooks.) While we may feel the chart is imperfect, it is logical and will further Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a debate society.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
There are currently five active RM discussions taking place that include discussion of a choice between "Shooting of" versus "Killing of" (Talk:Shooting of James Scurlock, Talk:Death of Sammy Yatim, Talk:Shooting of Kathryn Johnston, Talk:Shooting of Oscar Grant, Talk:Shooting of David McAtee). Rather than opening another discussion of the same issue as an RfC now, I suggest to wait until those are closed. Once those are closed, we will know whether we have "RMs creating inconsistency". I haven't noticed recent inconsistency in outcomes. I believe there are at least two questions. One question is about non-murder deaths by shooting, since clear cases of murder use "Murder of". The second question is about intent, since it may not be appropriate to use "Killing of" for an unintentional homicide or a homicide in self-defense (e.g., per this definition of "killing"). Personally, I think the status quo is to typically use "Shooting of" for non-murder deaths by shooting and "Death of" for other non-murder deaths. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Please let us avoid arguing this here. I started this section only to offer an opportunity to all comment on the framing of an RfC. I think most, even you, will agree we should settle this once and for all, and an RfC will be able to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I was arguing. I was describing issues that I believe should be considered and describing what I believe to be the status quo, which is rather different from your diagram. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: I believe the above-mentioned five RM discussions have all been closed, and no inconsistency has resulted. All of the discussed non-murder deaths by shooting are at "Shooting of" titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The Macmillan definition is sure to be problematic, since it defines a killing as when "someone is deliberately killed." If you believe that kill is not an exceptional verb when it comes to how a noun is formed from it, an unintentional killing is excluded from this definition. Flejern (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Also as a consideration for this RFC, I would recommend that advice related to "when" a rename should happen be added. If an article is being created editors should use the most conservative naming scheme given what is objectively known. This likely will be "death of " or "shooting of " in most cases. Obviously as events proceed there may be a push to change the article, but we should avoid rushing to move pages just because some status of the case has changed under the terms that are being developed here; ideally we'd want to have only one more "final" page move once it is determine if there was a motive or intent involved. --Masem (t) 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
At first glance, I support the flowchart. When push comes to shove, fall back on the description to be found in reliably published secondary sources. If reliably published secondary sources don't exist, the answer is WP:AfD, not WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Holy cow, I come back a day later and there's a flowchart. @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the flowchart is exactly on point. I say the proposal should be to add that flowchart (with some appropriate accompanying text) to WP:BLP (or some other appropriate page) with a reference pointing there from WP:AT (and/or other appropriate pages). Basically, seeking global consensus to make the flowchart a policy (or at least guideline) is exactly what we need to resolve these repetitive disputes. Levivich[dubious – discuss]21:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
As the author of both Shooting of David Ortiz (which did not involve a death) and Deaths of Jakelin Caal and Felipe Gómez Alonzo (which involved neither a shooting nor a murder charge), I support the scheme set forth in the flow chart. I would add a few caveats, as we also have a number of "Suicide of" articles, which should remain an option for such cases, as should "Execution of" where applicable. BD2412T21:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering about Death of Benito Mussolini (and Death of Muammar Gaddafi). Technically, he was executed. His death occurred in wartime, which is its own thing. Also, not to complicate things more (sometimes they are just complicated by themselves), but we also have a bunch of "Assassination of" titles. Perhaps it would be best to nail down all of the extant variations first. BD2412T04:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
There will always be exceptions and more kinks to work out. This is just a general guideline. I have always thought it should be Killing of Benito Mussolini and Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Although there was no "medical examiner" per se, all reliable sources say they were killed. Assasinations are rare exceptions we can deal with as they come. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
For most of the articles under discussion are standalone articles where the subject is only notable for one thing. When the subject (victim) has broader notability, it may make sense for the title to deviate from pattern to fit within the topic of the subject's broader notability. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I see at least a couple problems with the flowchart. Homicides without a murder conviction should not automatically be titled "Killing of..." For example: Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of JonBenet Ramsey. All three of those are considered homicides, but they could plausibly have been self-defense, negligence, or accidental. I don't think the titles of any of those three articles are controversial. "Killing of..." is actually used pretty rarely, and arbitrarily (although it seems to be mostly used by articles about people who were killed by police).
If the flowchart is to match what the current consensus seems to be, then "Has someone been convicted of murder? > No" should branch off into "Were police involved in the homicide? Yes > Killing of [name]; No > Death of [name]"
I support the conventions brilliantly encapsulated by Coffeeandcrumbs’ flowchart including the title changes they imply. Including it in the page makes sense. Who says titling can’t be algorithmic? —В²C☎14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Algorithmic is great for starting points, but beware because for some it causes thinking to shut down, algorithms should assist consensus decision making, not replace it. Always check that the algorithm approach doesn't conflict with source use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Start with the flowchart; check that result to see if it conflicts with sources. If that's an algorithm, I'm good with it. I have been looking into Death of Muammar Gaddafi, versus Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. The flowchart leads to "Killing of". "Death of" errs on the side of neutrality, and I think it errs. The page log shows contention involving the WP:SALTed "Murder of Muammar Gaddafi". In the flowchart, "someone" I guess implies an individual, implies that a mob cannot murder? For Gaddafi, there is no evidence that the individual(s) who killed him did so deliberately with premeditation. I think "Killing of" fits better, as per the flowchart, but I am not sure that the change significant enough to be worth doing. Maybe the flowchart should be provided primarily for new articles, and not be considered to be intended for changing old stable articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, we'd have to define "execution"... I for one am confused about why Gaddafi would be "killing of" and not "execution of". That's a question that will be raised for bin Laden, I'm sure. If "execution" means "by legal authority", then that would make sense.
One of the problems with trying to capture every permutation in the flowchart is that we'd have to grapple with definitional issues... what, exactly, is an "assassination", an "execution", etc.
Maybe the question should be, "Do RSes refer to it as an 'assassination'?" "Do RSes refer to it as an 'execution'?"
Murder of Seth Rich poses a dilemma, where there hasn't been a murder conviction, but all RSes seem to refer to it as the "murder of Seth Rich".
Levivich, if all RS refer to it as "Murder of Seth Rich", then COMMONNAME wins. This flowchart is only intended for cases that COMMONNAME does not give a clear title of choice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, that makes sense to me, to have this flowchart provide a "default" position when COMMONNAME does not provide an answer. It could be used for people who start articles and aren't sure what to call them (esp. before a common name emerges, in the early days of a current event), as well as a way to make a decision when editors can't come to consensus about a common name. Maybe in that case it's better to simplify that first blue bubble to just specify "assault", and then in an explainer somewhere, explain that commonname can override any of this, and so if the common name is "assassination," "execution," etc., then use that. Note that, at least as of right now, there does not seem to be consensus for Killing of Rayshard Brooks (a fatal shooting) to be at "killing of". If that's an indicator of where consensus is, that may suggest the flowchart needs to be revised. Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, that is exactly the type of nonsensical outcome we are trying to prevent. "Shooting of" is winning in that RM because of consistency and I am trying to change that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, we currently have 23 articles titled "Execution of" (one of which is the name of a film, so 22 on people being executed), and over 80 titled "Execution of" or "Executions of" with respect to people or groups. BD2412T17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, so under those definitions, was bin Laden executed, assassinated, or killed? It seems there are arguments for and against each title. Or is bin Laden just a special case that we concede wouldn't be resolved with this flowchart (which is fine by me)? I agree with those definitions, but it seems like under those definitons, Gaddafi would be an "assassination" (a prominent person deliberately killed for political or military reasons). Whereas, I think of Gaddafi as being executed, similar to Nguyễn Văn Lém. Nguyễn Văn Lém's execution has been ruled a war crime; where Saddam Hussein's was the result of recognized legal process. Man it's a tough ball of wax. Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I did not read the above discussion ... I looked at the flow-chart. This is a comment about the flow-chart. And this topic often comes up in renaming-of-article discussions. The flow-chart proposes that the title "murder" only be applied when there is a conviction in a court of law. I absolutely oppose this. This is very flawed logic. I have repeated this argument many times. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as an "unsolved murder" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as a "murder suicide" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. We not only have Wikipedia articles (and references) ... we even have specific Wikipedia categories for these things (e.g., unsolved murders; murder-suicides; etc.). The logic is simply flawed. We cannot say that the Black Dahlia case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the O. J. Simpson murder case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the Devon Routier case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Columbine High School were murdered (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Sandy Hook School were murdered (no one was convicted). Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. I could go on and on and on. There are "millions" of cases of unsolved murders and murder-suicides, in which a murder occurred and a conviction has not. This proposed logic is absolutely flawed. Adopting this flow-chart will have -- unintended (?) -- consequences. I absolutely oppose this. The word "murder" can -- and should -- be used in the layman's sense ... if the RS's report it. We don't need to invoke a "legal" definition ... (of which, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of different legal definitions, anyway). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Another comment: When a serial killer murders, say, ten people ... they are often convicted in only one or two cases. And prosecutors "don't bother" with the remaining eight or nine victims (i.e., they "reserve the cases" for a future trial, if needed ... since murder has no statute of limitations). This is pretty common. But it does not mean that the "un-convicted acts of murder" were not, in fact, murders. Despite the absence of a conviction, the murders occurred; and the victims were murdered. It is illogical to "deny" the fact of a murder simply due to the absence of a conviction. The absence can occur for many reasons (an unsolved murder; a murder-suicide; an acquittal; a lack of prosecution; etc. etc. etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic. Look at the "Wikipedia categories" at the bottom of the 9/11 attacks article ... half of them use the word "murder", "mass murder", and/or "murder-suicide". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro, this flowchart does not overrule COMMONNAME among RS. JFK would be titled assassination because that is how RS refer to it. In most cases which this flowchart is intended for, COMMONNAME is useless and jumbled. This flowchart is only trying to address that.
Ridiculous splitting of hairs. In that article, she is listed as a murder victim, umpteen times. And she is "categorized" in many, many Wikipedia "murder" categories. How can that be, with no conviction? That's my point. If I have to spell it out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro, I am not familiar with the Black Dahlia article but I assume that it says murder because most of the RS describe it as murder. In that case, there is no issue in calling it murder because that is what reliable sources refer to it as. I am not splitting hairs. I am simply saying it is not in contradiction with what I am proposing. I am only concerned with cases that are not consistently described as one thing or another in RS. My proposal is for borderline cases where COMMONNAME is not useful in determining what to call an event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Look, I am not trying to be difficult. But, I think -- maybe incorrectly -- that you're missing my point. I very strongly object to the idea that we (Wikipedia) "require" a court conviction to call something a "murder". That notion (premise) is incorporated into the flow-chart. And it should not be there. It will (unintentionally) set a very bad "precedent". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If RS call it murder, then the COMMONNAME is murder and the flowchart does not apply. This is incorporated in the updated flowchart (above). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic. You are omitting one very obvious factor here, and that is common sense. A shooting of a public figure from a concealed location = obvious murder. A plane deliberately flown into a building full of people = obvious murder. A prostitute stabbed and dismembered on the streets of Victorian London = obvious murder. An actual conviction is not necessary for common sense to be applied here. But many other killings are not obvious murders, even if they are clearly unlawful killings or homicides. Manslaughter is not murder and is, in my experience, not commonly referred to as murder in reliable sources, despite your previous claims to the contrary. Some historic unsolved killings are indeed commonly referred to as murders in reliable sources, even without a conviction (including murder/suicides that are declared to be such by the authorities), and if they are then we use that term, but media coverage of ongoing cases is frequently not especially reliable in the frenzy for a good story, and we should be very wary of using the term "murder" just because they do. Not because we're worried about the rights of any accused, but because we're a respectable encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The pedant in me compels me to point out an error in the chart: an execution is a homicide. And the box "Has cause of death been determined?" should read "Had manner of death been determined?" EEng04:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
A change needed in the flowchart is that there are many examples of killings that didn't result in a murder conviction which were certainly murder & which should include murder in their titles, often in cases in which the killer couldn't be tried due to dying soon afterwards. An example of this is the murder of Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan, although we don't have an article on the murder. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is a good point. And it's the same exact point that I made above. Versace was murdered. Cunanan was the perpetrator, although never convicted in court. He either died of suicide or was killed by the police ... I forget which. None of that changes the fact that Versace was murdered. Cunanan's death by suicide or by police does not "erase" the fact that Versace was murdered. I gave dozens of similar examples above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with most of this, but I think the American justice system should not be used to determine facts about "killing" vs. "murder". The US government doesn't determine our facts stated, or otherwise the Donald Trump article would have a spotless record of conduct... Let's not pretend that Floyd was accidentally killed, while there's video evidence of him being deliberately suffocated for over 8 minutes - I can't breathe. ɱ(talk)18:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Ɱ, that's true but the choices aren't "murder" or "accidental killing". "Murder" specifically means an illegal killing, i.e., an unjustified killing. That definition still fits the GF case in my opinion, but it's not my opinion that matters. "Killing" doesn't just mean "accidental killing", it can also mean "intentional but justified killing". Levivich[dubious – discuss]18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether it's justified or not should not be up to the US, which has an uncharacteristic level of corruption and racism against people of color. The reliable sources don't call it justified murder, even if somehow it may be legal right now. ɱ(talk)18:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Bill Barr, top legal official in the country, declined to charge the police in Eric Garner's murder. Why? Nobody knows, but he is among the most corrupt and racist in Trump's cabinet. ɱ(talk)18:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Ɱ, that issue can only be solved with RS. If RS overwhelmingly describe an incident as murder, then your concerns about this are handled by COMMONNAME which is king. I hope you are not suggesting that we decide on our own whether it is a murder or a killing. We have no right to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You state: I hope you are not suggesting that we decide on our own whether it is a murder or a killing. We have no right to do that. Exactly. I agree 100%. But, please see this, um, "reasoning". Here: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020. Where an editor (User:Sceptre) rationalizes / justifies that it's OK for his/her "feelings" to supersede and to trump what RS's say (in a "murder" versus "killing" situation). And then closes the discussion in that vein. I forget his/her exact words ... something about "he/she is not convinced". As if that's the standard. The RS's need to "convince" some random Wikipedia editor. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: (1) Who says that that is the "common name"? (2) If so, why was it named "Murder of Tessa Majors" up until yesterday or the day before? (3) If so, why did the first "move" discussion (January 2020) end with "do not move"? Please explain. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the American media predominantly relies on the US court system, which is a problem; I don't think they want lawsuits for claiming someone's guilty unless they're proven so. There's an extreme disconnect here that needs to be fixed, and it may need to involve a closer analysis of the evidence beyond the weak, lawsuit-squirmish wording of RSs. ɱ(talk)19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, though sure 'killing' is more accurate, even if it is slightly more awkward wording. ɱ(talk)00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ɱ:@Levivich: An interesting development on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks is that justifiability is taken by some users to be the dividing line between "killing" and "shooting"/"death" rather than the dividing line between "killing" and "murder"; some of these users also wrongly believe that it is appropriate for their belief about the shooting of Rayshard Brooks to be reflected in the article's name. But I think the question on the implications of the justifiability of a killing on the naming of an article needs to be resolved, because a resolution to this question could reduce some of the uncertainty around what the name of this article, and many others, should be. --Flejern (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Support I think the chart is the best thing we can use. I'm sick of all these discussions in individual talk pages about the title, this needs to be decided here and set in Wikipedia policy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think that the chart is a great stepping off point, but it fails to recognize some of the nuances of naming. For example, Death of Adolf Hitler could also be accurately entitled "Suicide of Adolf Hitler". It is my impression, however, that Death of Adolf Hitler carries the correct title, despite not conforming to the flowchart. While I can't exactly place my finger on why I feel this way, it's my feeling that people who are not famous for the specific circumstances surrounding their death probably don't need a title more specific than "Death of...". This is with the exception of extrajudicial killings, which are almost always covered widely as "murder of" or "killing of" such that "death of" would clearly fail WP:COMMONNAME. I do appreciate the WP:COMMONNAME disclaimer, but I still feel like the flowchart is limited even with its inclusion. As for homicides, I believe that "murder case" is probably acceptable as it does not necessarily imply that a specific person committed a murder, only that a murder is being prosecuted. Where a living person has been accused of a murder, Wikipedia should absolutely not be referring to killings as murders until a conviction is secured. On top of the obvious WP:BLP violations not taking these precautions would entail, every murder case would turn a talk page into a courtroom. While I understand the mistrust in criminal justice systems in the U.S. and elsewhere, a user-generated internet website is not going to be a better arbiter of truth. For cases where no one is accused of a crime (unsolved murders) or where those accused are deceased, I think it may be acceptable to review the reliable English-speaking media to decide whether a homicide is best referred to as a killing or as a murder. Mysterymanblue05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Mysterymanblue, Death of Adolf Hitler is so titled because it is the common name in corpus.[1] Also, the flowchart does not oppose "murder case" as in the O.J. Simpson murder case which is also the COMMONNAME. However, we still need help for cases that do not have COMMONNAME which this flow chart tries to address.
In any case, this is not an RfC, only a call for comments for a future RfC on how that RfC should be structured and what it should ask. There is no need for !votes. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for voting, force of habit. I still feel that even when there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should not necessarily default to the most specific title. Sometimes the circumstances of the death are not very important. Mysterymanblue06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - possibly with a few changes to address some issues raised here - I think we need a guideline as these article titles are proving to be endless battlegrounds. I agree any homicide resulting in a conviction should be titled "Murder of" and death without conviction a "Killing of" - regarding cases like those of serial killers mentioned above - I've never seen a serial killer case where every victim has their own article anyway. But in those cases we can discuss those, as with cases like Michael Jackson...but in clear cut cases of homicide we should have a clear guideline - at least we won't be debating every single homicide article title. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - Before I realized this discussion existed, I was about to request a move for numerous articles involving the shooting deaths of people at the hands of other people (e.g. Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Justine Damond, etc., etc.). Now, during my search for articles regarding the topic, I actually noticed something. We have the Shooting of Abdullahi Omar Mohamed and Shooting of Charles Kinsey articles, both of which also involved the shootings of people at the hands of other people...but the victims in question survived. Who knows how many other articles we have out there about people who were shot by others and survived? Therefore, I think it is extremely important for Wikipedia to make a distinction between articles involving people who died as a result of encounters with armed individuals, and articles involving people who survived those same encounters, otherwise it will be extremely misleading. An uneducated, uninformed reader who had just read the Charles Kinsey article could find the Michael Brown article and think he survived until he reads the lede. Even if "killing" doesn't work in the community as a replacement, we really do need to think of a different way to name these articles so the distinction can be illustrated. Love of Corey (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Procedural note and Oppose. This discussion was initially advertised as just a collaborative way to "craft a unbiased RfC", not as a discussion of whether the proposal was desirable or not. Previously, when I commented in a way that looked like I might be expressing opposition to the proposal, there was a response saying "Please let us avoid arguing this here. I started this section only to offer an opportunity to all comment on the framing of an RfC." So the discussion of the merits was never really opened. Later, there was no objection when some people started expressing support, but expressions of opposition have not seemed as welcome. I'm wondering whether this is now a discussion of the merits. Are people now allowed to start arguing against the proposal? I see that a couple of people have started to do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Support flowchart I think the flow chart makes a lot of sense and while nothing is ever 100% full proof, the chart helps resolve many of the inconsistencies in article titles. I would move forward with the chart in a properly formed RfC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is too soon to tell right now. It depends on the outcome of the autopsy. Unless RS predominately describe the event as "murder", we should wait for a conviction. However, if the M.E. determines it is homicide, which is possible to do even with skeletal remains, then I think it should be moved Killing of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow. We can move to murder if RS begin to consistently use the term or when there is a conviction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"Murder of ..." in an open case, would be an unacceptable pre-judgement in the WP:Voice of Wikipedia. As above, a formal conviction may not be necessary, as someone may be murdered by an unknown person. I think what is needed is a coronial finding, not a conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Definition of killing
A neutrally-worded RFC should present facts about the defintion of the noun killing. Dictionaries including MacMillan and Cambridge define it as an intentional act to kill.[2][3] Merriam-Webster only calls it the act of one that kills.[4]. This can lead to an NPOV issue if readers are misled about any intent involved in a death. Part of editors' confusion might be that other forms of kill do not specifiy intent,[5][6] while the noun can. These would not imply any intent: "He was killed while in police custody." "He was shot by police, killing him". But this could say his death was intentional: "The killing of Floyd prompted protests."—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't taking a position on one versus another. My point is that a well-prepared RFC should lay out the facts being disputed, inasmuch as possible, for a fair assessment. People often won't read important points in other peoples !votes. Feel free to summarize the main points of the links you presented.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
American dictionaries define "killing":
American Heritage: The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
Merriam-Webster: the act of one that kills ("kills" defined as to deprive of life : cause the death of)
Dictionary.com (Random House): the act of a person or thing that kill ("kill" defined as to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
For the sake of completeness, the MacMillan link above is for American usage, and it is not consistent with that ENGVAR interpretation: an act in which someone is deliberately killed. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It may be a British company, but it is not publishing that as just a British definition. It says "This is the American English definition of killing. View British English definition of killing." (with a link to a different page). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We are unlikely, as with many things in WP, to be able to come down to any "one size fits all" solution. "Murder of" can only be used in the clearest cases. In UK (and probably many other places) murder has to be premeditated, whereas manslaughter is still culpable homicide, but without any express intention - the result of gross negligence; an unlawful and dangerous acts; provocation; etc. If the death resulted from the killer acting in self-defence against foo. The article would certainly be "killing of foo", but it would neither be murder not manslaughter. "Death of" will certainly be appropriate, when the cause of death is not clear or in cases of natural death, e.g. when there is a full-length bio-article on a person, but with a separate "main" article on his death. One reason for having death/killing/murder of articles is to deal with the situation of people who were NN except that their deaths became notorious. Which is to be preferred of the alternatives will tend to depend on context. The important thing is not to have multiple articles: there can be multiple names, but any others should be redirects to the single article. As long as that has a name that fits the context, it does not unduly matter which of the alternatives is selected. I would point out that shooting, stabbing, etc do not necessarily imply that the victim died. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the pink advisory box at the bottom is a good improvement. The "Execution of" branch looks out of place to me. "Execution" is not a "manner of death" (unlike homicide, suicide, and natural causes); also, I'm not sure who "decides" that something is or is not an execution, other than reliable sources, in which case it would be COMMONNAME. So I'm not sure if we need execution in a "default flowchart" at all, and I think my first choice would be to remove it. Second choice is to come up with a test other than "manner of death", because I don't think any autopsy will ever report the manner of death to be "execution". Levivich[dubious – discuss]00:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not think an RfC is necessary and will likely lead to more WP:NOCONSENSUS. I think I have convincing evidence in the prepared mass RM that we should move all the pages per WP:CONSISTENCY.
I would like to see if I can get moderate support for starting this RM before causing all disruption that is bound to come from tagging 98 articles with RM discussion notices.
The flowchart may be adopted some day. But, right now, I want to first deal with the most pressing issue: how police killings by firearms have become either an exception or disjointed from the corresponding lists, depending on how you look at it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop. Do not disrupt any article talk page with this. Instead, use a projectspace new dedicated talkpage.
Are you sure that they are are the same? If they can be subcategorized, eg "probably", "surely" and "slam dunk definitely", then do so. It may be all very sensible, but a bulldozer running over a few bystander exceptions will kill your project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I also checked each one to ensure it was correctly categorized. Before I start this, I could do another round of checks to ensure that there is a source cited that they were shot and killed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Referring back to the #Definition_of_killing thread, "shot dead" does not necessarily mean it's a "killing"— it could depend on which side of the pond your dictionary is from. Now perhaps these victims were all Americans, and you get more American !voters that are ok with "killing" meaning "plain ol' caused a death with no intent implied. Period." My suggestion would be to RM one page as a litmus test, say Breonna Taylor's, and see how that goes before considering a mass.—Bagumba (talk)
The lists use killing but I am open to running more litmus tests. Breonna Taylor would garner the most opposition which makes it the ideal candidate for a litmus test. Maybe then I could run a less controversial one to check the logic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba:, after see this, I have reconsidered the idea of another litmus test. I am convinced we are arguing in circles and we have done enough tests. One more will not change anything. We cannot tell if their is enough consensus on whether "killing" inherently implies wrongdoing or not, while CONSISTENCY is blocking the way. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve no procedural advice here but I think it’s a good idea, perhaps better than the RfC, and will align past errors up. Also makes it easier to have future titles on these issues named correctly. Re. the RM diff, might want to collapse the 3rd list (long scroll). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I generally will agree that "Killing" over "Shooting" is generally better. Taking "how" or the "why" from the titles of these article titles is a means to make them neutral regardsless how much we know factually or post-event to be true. (This would even be for "Murder of Name" when we know the death was pre-meditated) How the person was killed is less important than that the person was killed, so I would support the mass RM here. --Masem (t) 13:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
1. Preferred Name: I would lean toward "Killing of" since it would follow the same format with other mechanisms of police related killings. My opinion here is not strong though.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I realize this has probably been discussed before, but I think it is time we set some definitive rules for where RM discussions concerning multiple pages take place. I believe if an RM is made that would swap an article at the base name with a disambiguation page, the RM should be held at the talk page of the base name. See the recent move request at Talk:Yard (disambiguation) for an example. By holding the RM at the disambiguation page, instead of at Talk:Yard, it is in a less trafficked location. In that example, someone might not realize the same move request had been rejected previously at Talk:Yard. -- Calidum16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, the template is set up in such a way that it's a bit easier to start an RM on the page that at the time occupies the primary title. Ideally, this shouldn't matter: the template can be altered to make it convenient to start the RM at whatever page we decide is best. In the past, there was a preference to have those discussions on the talk page of the content article, as it would generally have more watchers. This is no longer relevant now that RMCD bot places notifications on all pages concerned. If we want to make it easier to notice previous discussions, we can choose either the article page (as it's a bit more likely that previous discussions would have taken place there) or the dab page (it will be much easier for the current discussion to be noticed in the course of future proposals, as it's unlikely there will be much talk page content intervening). However, if we're going to make any rules here at all, it will make more sense to go for what we're after directly (just require proposers to link to previous RMs), than to adopt elaborate indirect guidelines. Personally, I find dab pages to be the more logical choice as the substance of such an RM involves essentially a question of disambiguation that doesn't have much bearing on the topic of the article concerned. – Uanfala (talk)17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
If we wanted all RMs to be placed on the page currently at the base name that would mean all moves involving a DAB where there is a proposal to move to primary topic would then have to be placed on the DAB page then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
New RMs should summarize all previous related RMs, linking them especially if on other pages. This would solve much the problem of people being unaware of a previous discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This was discussed last year at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 32#Where to hold discussions involving multiple pages and my point stands that the bot still notifies the article and talk page (and Wikiprojects are still notified). Interestingly the previous RM in 2016 that I didn't notice until you added the old moves was on the article but was malformatted so the DAB page wasn't notified) As noted unlike Isle of Mull/Mull the RM motivation is exclusively to have the DAB page at the base name, the move of the unit away is a consequence of that. While its probably true that more often than not a RM involving a DAB and an article at the base name where the nom is exclusively making the move due to lack of primacy are held on the article's talk, I'm not aware of anyone else questioning when they have been placed on the DAB page's talk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hokkaido's required to redirect municipalities
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. can you redirect municipalities of Hokkaido?
ex. Engaru, Hokkaido
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I did a close, however my browser hung and I did a force-quit, but I am not sure if the bot picked it up, can someone double check the list for me? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Need help on move
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I don't know if I'm on the right page but I need some help in moving an article. I have actually done several page moves already but this one is quite complicated for me. I wanted to move Gerald Anthony Gullas Jr. to Samsam Gullas (which is the WP:COMMONNAME) but the second article has already a redirect to the first article. I tried to move the first article using the second article's title but it won't allow me because "page of that name already exists". I need to know if this requires technical help. Thanks a lot in advance! — Emperork (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does require technical help from an admin or page mover because there is more than one edit at the redirect. I've put in a request on your behalf at WP:RM/TR. Someone should take care of it shortly. Station1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There's a proposal under way to rewrite the guidelines about links to disambiguation pages: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Draft wording. One question is the extent to which they should apportion responsibility for fixing incomings links after a move of a disambiguation page to the primary title. – Uanfala (talk)20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced XFDs backlog
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help with the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. A lot are speedy/procedural ones, but there are some that do need moves. The ones that need work on are under the headers Non-article content at AfD and Templates, categories and files at MfD. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Article title and focus
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to invite you to comment on the following issue:
As I read that link, it prohibits them from editing content but specifically allows constructive comments on talk pages. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
My move request was removed but hasn't been done?
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The name "East Timor" in the Wikipedia article "List of sovereign States and dependent territories in Oceania" should be changed to Timor-Leste, as the latter name is the one that is used by that country in the United Nations. Atelerixia (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello I would like the name changed on the Snooker player Jamie Rhys Clarke's homepage to Jamie Clarke. The name Rhys was added in error when the page was created. He does not use that name at all and never has done. Multiple sources including World Snooker, BBC, Eurosport etc list him as Jamie Clarke. Can this name be removed please ?. Rdgards 178.167.203.183 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
At WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes, I changed adding another fact for the third result sentence. I decided to put "If a good-faith RM nomination proposes to move a page and has no comments after at least seven days, the default result is move" since I think that if there were no discussions for a single page more, I would assume that it is uncontroversial. I also think that if a RM discussion has no comments, administrators and/or page movers would usually move those pages. Seventyfiveyears (talk)17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
While I agree move requests can be closed as moved in those circumstances, I'm not sure it should be the default. The closer should still have some leeway to decide whether to relist or close the discussion. -- Calidum17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This discussion was closed as consensus to move, despite only two people taking part and one of those being neutral. I can't imagine this is something that would happen in other areas of Wikipedia, so is that the normal practice here? Wouldn't it have been better to relist? Also, neither of the relevant Wikiprojects were notified; whose responsibility is it to do that? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I’m Doggy54321. I recently found a potential glitch in the way we request technical moves. I moved User:Doggy54321/sandbox to User:Doggy54321/Sandbox as all my other subpage titles start with a capital letter. I didn’t like how it looked, so I made a request here at WP:RM/TR to have it moved back to "sandbox" as I could not do that myself (I am not a page mover). I noticed in the template we use to request technical requests that there is a "move" button. I assume anyone reading this knows what that is and how it is used. I pressed it because I was curious to see what would happen (I was expecting an error message), and it took me to something reminiscent of Special:MovePage (I’m pretty sure it was but it had some setting on it). I pressed the move button and moved User:Doggy54321/Sandboxback to User:Doggy54321/sandbox by unconsciously deleting pages under G6 and then moving the pages back. If you look at the history of User:Doggy54321/sandbox, this is somewhat documented. But, if you look at my log, you can see that I fully deleted the pages and moved them over redirect. I’m going to assume this is a glitch that needs to be solved ASAP, as I’m fairly certain that this action is supposed to be restricted to only people with the page mover right. Please ping me upon your reply using {{ping}} (or any other notification template). Thanks! D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: It's not a glitch. Any autoconfirmed user can move a page over a redirect that points back to that page, provided there is no more than one edit on the redirect. For example, if you move A to B, and no one edits A in any way, you should be able to move B back to A the same way you did the original move. Station1 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have tried my best to find out how to move an article. Then I read that this is done by a bot. Whatsoever. Can anyone move Peter Kalmus and turn it into a disambiguation page? We have two scientists with this name. Currently under Peter Kalmus, there is a British particle physicist. Then there is Peter Kalmus (climate scientist), an American climate scientist. In my view the latter is even more popular. Even if not, I cannot see why they are not on the same level and why the former is "hidden". I wonder if someone could move that? 194.62.169.86 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Earlier today I added a move request template to an article. It is shown on this Project Page as "(Discuss) – Starting rate of UK income tax → Starting rate of UK income tax" i.e. two identical titles. The problem seems to be that the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [7][8] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [9]. Now the main page is 10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I'm not really sure what the correct fix is. I seem to remember there were quite a lot of these mismatched talk pages many years ago. I feel the move should never have been carried out like this and redirecting the Talk Page just confirms it. --Lo2u(T • C)20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There are two Rudi Dollmayers who share the same name (as they are related, one is senior, the other jr) but professionally they both go by simply "Rudi Dollmayer" which I discovered after interviewing the model. I started off with simply naming the page "Rudi Dollmayer (model" but by doing so, realized it doesn't come up in any search unless I put the full title with (model) is there any way around this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
To editor Kvdoglover: typed in "Rudi Dollmayer" to the WP search engine and the drop down menu did list the model. I see that the model's article has been PRODded, so you might want to do something about that if you can. Other than that, it looks like the page will be pretty easy to find just as it is, at least for now. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The title is Canadian Investment Manager. This is old, and it is now renamed Chartered Investment Manager . Please move to reflect that Asadqureshy85 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
RMNAC is more rules-laden and serious that NAC in general; is there de-permissioning process?
Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed that WP:RMNAC is considerably more rules-oriented than WP:NAC in general, and due to the contentiousness often involved, RM even has its own appeal process, WP:MR, while almost all other closure decisions have to go to WP:DRV, if they are XfDs, or go to WP:AN otherwise. This seems to suggest that there is a process for determining that someone who has been doing RNMAC improperly should no longer be permitted to close RMs, pending some later showing that they are competent to do so. I would like to know what that process is, if it exists. (Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases. And that actually would provide a formal permissions-revocation path, namely that of PM, if one does not already exist.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Beyond that, I sometimes wonder whether it's time to propose that RMNAC be limited to page-movers and admins, except maybe in unquestionable WP:SNOW cases -- the problem for this is that closing RMs is one of the major ways to demonstrate a need for the PMR bit in the first place (and the other way, draftifying articles without admin oversight, is more contentious/has a worse failure mode). Vaticidalprophet21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It's actually pretty easy to develop a need for PMR bit doing only uncontroversial page moves (not necessarily as uncontroversial as SNOW, I'd say, would be OK). The most controversial closes are often the "no consensus" decisions with comments that amount to just counting, or supervoting. Those are the ones that need to be left to more experienced/established editors. I think SMcCandlish was motivated here by the recent close at Talk:Virtual reality headset, where the closer has a lot of experience (he tells us), but doesn't seem to appreciate the actual issues brought up in the RM, which have little to do with virtual reality. See our discussion with the closer, and followup RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
But doing something you don't actually want to do for the sake of a right is iffy imo.
In any case, both RMNAC and NAC are really just equivalent to essays. I'd personally rather not see more things be limited to people with fancy user-rights. Errors are (relatively speaking) uncommon, and if they happen can be addressed by MR/AN/etc. Individuals who keep making errors I've seen be asked to stop closing discussions by an admin, and that works well enough ime (that or a formal ban at ANI, example, which seems to be the process SMC is asking about?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
There are a few people -- some who are respectable recognizable names in otherwise good standing -- who are tbanned from AfD closes/relists. Although I !voted (with significant regret as a last resort) to tban Expertwikiguy in that discussion, it's a practice I have deeply mixed views on for how much it looks like a one-way street. There's a contingent of the userbase who would happily ban all AfD NACs (including relists), and I don't know of any application to lift such a ban that's succeeded, nor can I honestly imagine one succeeding due to the "AfD NACs are inherently bad" subset. The consequence of this is that in cases where someone does acquire competence later, it risks being an inescapable black mark that permanently prevents the editor in question from a number of community functions.
If I do have a perhaps-controversial thought on limiting RMs, I really don't think people who can't move over redirects should be closing ones that require it. All that does is put a workload on people perfectly capable of doing the close ourselves. Vaticidalprophet00:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I fall into the AfD NACs are inherently bad subset personally. But AfD isn't equivalent to all other XfD venues, or RM.
Also, it helps to know (per below comment) this is about buidhe and not some new account going in to the deep end. I feel like that's a reasonable close. Application of policy generally varies per discussion. WP:COMMONNAME is a PAG as much as any applicable MOS pages. It was 4-2 against moving, and the oppose arguments were reasonable, not fallacious or objectively meritless (irrelevant of whether I agree with them or not). There's no way a closer can conclude consensus to move from that discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, there's a context here? Buidhe is 1. one of the most respected names in RM, admin or otherwise and 2. so far as I know, a she. The context here that you're complaining about her is...illuminating, but I can't imagine a situation where she gets tbanned from closing RMs. Vaticidalprophet00:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I pretty much agree. But in this case she made a mistake in closing a controversial RM, in the opinion of several of us. As SmokeyJoe says below, restricting NACs to uncontroversial is an idea that most agree with; in this case I immediately asked her to revert, and she declined. I'm guessing that SMcCandlish is looking for that "formula" that SmokeyJoes says cannot be written. But there's a reason behind the request. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
No offence, but given that all three people who are unsatisfied with the close were also the only three who voted support, is it possible that you're just not able to see the close neutrally here due to your involvement in the dispute? As far as I can see she closed it correctly. No closer is obliged to self-revert if they think their close is correct, and it's unfair to expect NACs to self-revert a fair close as soon as one of the participants deems it incorrect (what would be the point of discussing it if everyone agrees?). One of you could file a Wikipedia:Move review which would be the normal way to challenge a close one believes is bad, but nobody did, and instead we have here a proposal to limit NACs from closing RMs and de-permissioning users from the PMR user-right? So what's going on here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
RMNAC is convoluted and lax. And it was written largely by people who had poor judgement in closing RMs. Restricting NACs, RM or otherwise, to uncontroversial closes is pretty obviously a good idea. Uncontroversial is best defined in hindsight, formulae for wisdom cannot be written. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment From WP:RMNAC which sums up my view: NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there.. You should file a WP:Move review instead of coming here with a grievance over a move closure that did not go the way you wanted it to go. Polyamorph (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures? This is comically bad advice. Anyone who is highly experienced does not need to be reading advice from RMNAC. Think, who is the intended audience. It is inexperienced Non Admins who are starting to think that they can start closing RM. As such, it is useless advice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The point of my comment was that this whole thread was started because the OP disagrees with a NAC made by an experienced and respected user. They want RMNAC restricted but this quoted section makes it clear RM closures already are restricted to experienced users. This discussion should be closed as it is a bad faith attempt at discrediting a close they disagree with made by a user we trust on the basis that it is a non-admin close. Polyamorph (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree. While it is true that the specific close complaints should go to WP:MR, it is separately true the WP:RMNAC provides poor advice. Your allusions to a "experienced and respected user" also belong only at MR. The advice should not be written for experienced and respected users, but for new and eager users. As such, the advice should be cautious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with that at all, experienced users and even admins still need guidelines. New eager users also need to know experience with RM and closing procedures is required for closure. Clearly this needs to be stated. Polyamorph (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Polyamorph. Of course admins and experienced editors need guidance. Hence the WP:PAGs, which document information for everyone. In any case, if there's an issue to fix you start with a problem so people can craft a solution to solve that problem. There's no problem here (certainly, the precipitating incident wasn't one), so there's nothing to solve, so it's hard to come up with a 'reform' or a 'solution' in this discussion. Bad closes go to WP:MR. People consistently making bad closes go to WP:ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:NACD is the guideline. It, unlike RMNAC, is well written. Eg. "If you are not fairly experienced, or are unfamiliar with ... , do not close such discussions." It is a mere technicality that NACD is about deletion, because it is under "Closing discussions", and everything written applies squarely to non-deletion discussions, including RM and RfC.
WP:NAC is a well written essay that supports NACD.
WP:RMNAC is an oddity. It is peppered with non-statments and odd advice. It is an instruction page, and advice does not belong interspersed amongst instructions.
RMNAC is bloat. It is wordy rambling. It copies some selections of NACD and NAC (redundancy), and adds wordy non-statements like "are allowed to"; "Non-administrators are reminded"; "NACs are not discouraged"; "Editors are permitted".
I propose that RMNAC be cut back to:
Non-admin closures of RM discussions must follow the same rules at WP:NACD, and advice at WP:NAC. They must be declared with template {{subst:RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{subst:RM top}} template (or use the |nac= parameter in the closing template).
RMNAC should be simple instruction. It should not repeat the guideline or essay advice. Instructions should not be confused with advice. Closing instructions for admins (like fixing double redirects, navbox links, ect) should not be repeated for NACs, unless there is a difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose while I agree there may be room to improve clarity of the instructions, cutting back to a single short paragraph is unhelpful. This guide should be specific to RM and I don't see a problem with some repetition of content from elsewhere to keep the instructions in one place. We absolutely should be reminding users that while NACs are not discouraged, experience in RM procedure is required. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think RM needs special advice? You disagree with “instructions” are not the place for advice? Asserting “not discouraged” is weak, poor expression. A requirement for experience in RM procedure is sensible, but why should that be specific to non admins? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said, there is room to improve clarity, the language can be improved. But that's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is useful to have specific instructions on how to close a RM for both admins and non-admins.Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
With occasional exceptions, RMNAC closes are good closes and some of the worst closes have been made by admins. Regardless the status of the closer, let's face it, a "bad" RM close is not really a big problem. At least for blatantly bad NAC closes an admin can be summoned to review and revert. Good luck if it's a bad close by an admin. In any case MRV is available. In the end, given the size of the RM backlog, limiting who can close more than is allowed now is a step in the wrong direction. —В²C☎14:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm uncomfortable with the forum shopping and revenge posting nature of the OP. While there may be some discussion to be had over the wording in WP:RMNAC this thread is toxic and I'm closing it.Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help a move showing database error
Latest comment: 3 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried splitting off some of the history and only moving some of it, but it didn't like that either. I get "[5e3852c2-1c76-445e-8fba-b74057cf5580] 2021-03-24 16:18:31: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Not a mighty protection lol. 14:38, 18 March 2016 Lectonar protected Help talk:Getting started Edit/Move, Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite) ─ The Aafī(talk)16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My interpretation of all of this seems to be a page had a large number of watchers (>10k), a fairly new user incorrectly moved it (and could because the page wasn't sufficiently protected), but then the database needed several hours to update all the watchlists, but others attempted to move it back before the first move was fully completed, and some other attempts to correct it without waiting only made it more complicated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moving a redirected article to draft
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello
Can you change the name of “Category:Tulfah family” into “Category:Saddam family”, for 2 reasons, the article to which this category is attached is saddam's family not telfah’s, and the members of this category are not of telfah family, they are mostly of Albu Majid (Saddam smallest familial group) and of Albu Khattab (the subclan of Saddam’s maternal brothers).--Abu aamir (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, @Abu aamir, and welcome. This isn't the place to request moves -- the guide to doing so is on the WP:RM page. If you want to make move discussions, you make them on the article's talk page. Vaticidalprophet19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'd consider re-writing this a bit since in practice these aren't difficult to deal with and such requests should probably not be closed simply because they aren't formatted correctly, obviously if someone keeps doing it a note can be left on their talk page. If the request is to move an article to where a DAB page is such as for Sutton Sutton, London → Sutton you just add the DAB to the RM like this (or add the delete to make way for WP:ONEOTHER that User:Paine Ellsworth adds). If its a DAB moving to where an article is (or another article is) you just add the article at the base name to the request either using a question mark or picking the most appropriate title you can think of (like this). And if its an article moving to a qualified title but the DAB isn't included you include the DAB in the request (like here) though you should make sure that this is the case since its possible the user may think unnecessary disambiguation is appropriate in which case you can then oppose on those grounds otherwise if the move has been carried out you can just move the DAB as well (like here) since if there's consensus that there's no primary topic that suggests redirecting to basename to the DAB and as such the DAB moved to the basename per WP:MALPLACED. The problem with the current wording is that it may encourage someone who doesn't want a move to close it when it can simply be fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I can see where that would be a concern, so I wonder if anyone has any data on such closures? I've done it myself on occasion (rarely); however, more likely I will just fix the request. And if the nom continues to open requests the same way, I will go to their talk page and gently remind them that their request might be procedurally closed if they leave it like that. Mostly it's inexperienced editors who haven't yet digested all of WP:RM who transgress this way. The smarter ones get it right on their next move request. I don't mind fixing these malformed requests, but I think it would be better for the project if automation were introduced to handle this. I won't be around forever P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it should generally ever be necessary to close these on procedural grounds, though I suppose there might rarely be a valid reason I'm not thinking of at the moment. I think Paine's edit was too much instruction creep. I made a simpler change. For the earlier discussions that led to the creation of this section, see User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 2#Incomplete requests. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"enter on a new line, directly below"
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you will see an edit note saying to add new entries "on a new line, directly below". It's not clear whether this means to add them at the top of the list existing there, or at the bottom; indeed, right now you can see that people have been adding new entries to both the top and the bottom. While I honestly can't imagine something I care about less than whether it's "new entries at the top" or "new entries at the bottom", I think it's obvious that we should pick one, and then make it clear which you ought to use. jp×g21:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
MOS:LINKSTYLE says not to put links in section headings (and to instead use {{Main article}} or {{See also}}, but many section headings on this page (Requesting technical moves, Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, and Current discussions) have links. Can I go ahead and remove those links and put {{Main article}} instead or has there previously been consensus to keep it that way? Davidxu160801 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I'm posting here to hopefully avoid AN/I and/or Move Review. There are two sections on the talk page of Ceyockey questioning two of their recent RM closes,
and are not getting any responses from them, even though they have been active since all the comments were made. I am hereby requesting an uninvolved admin to review these two closes and decide what action may be taken. I know we can go to move review but consensus seems so clear on both—contrary to the way they were closed—so I'd like an admin to take an objective look and hopefully just revert and reverse. FWIW, I was involved in the first one, but not the second. --В²C☎23:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Born2cycle and others are insufficiently patient. It is, afterall, the Memorial Day weekend in the United States. Besides that, I am finding people coming and attempting to relitigate cases on my talk page. Asking me "reconsider this close - you are obviously wrong" is not a way to start a conversation and I have no interest in re-litigating. People should not avoid taking things to Move Review if they feel it was closed improperly. It is a truism here that anyone who disagrees with an outcome will immediately turn to the closer and ask to reconsider. This suggests the closer did not think at all about the closing. That is an incorrect assumption. Period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Are we that bad? I hope I'm not being impatient. But agree that you've done nothing wrong. The intentions of two of the !votes were unclear. They are now clarified IMO, and we are moving on. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Move Review explicitly requires reaching out to the closer on their talk page to try to resolve the apparent disagreement in reading of consensus in a given RM. Filing of a move review which is a lengthy process is only to occur when such discussion does not lead to a resolution. When the closer chooses to not even participate in the discussion to address the specific points raised about their closing, it’s impossible to know whether resolution is even possible. I hope you reconsider and respond in the two sections linked above. —-В²C☎10:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That one was also overturned. A lot of time and effort could have been saved had the closer agreed to reverse per the discussions on their Talk page. --В²C☎15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That quote is from the section with the heading "Many discussions do not need formal closure...". For formal closures (section 3), the closer must be uninvolved. RMs are always formally closed, so the closer must always be uninvolved (except in the case where the proposer wishes to close the RM early as withdrawn). There are rare cases where RMs are WP:SNOW-closed early, and in those cases where consensus is overwhelmingly clear, probably no-one would complain if the closer was involved, but better to be safe and leave it for someone else. Colin M (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The guidance on involvement on this page appears to be much stricter than the spirit of the actual policy. For one, involvement in tangential or historical issues, including historical titles, should not preclude someone from closing in the future, especially if information has greatly changed and the close is well thought out and explained. Furthermore, an editor who closes a move request should not be considered involved in future move requests for the same page. I'm not sure why these 5 bullet points are on the closing instructions, but they need to be modified to be in line with the spirit of the involvement policy, and not be overly restrictive as they are now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the process to contesting a move made under WP:RM if an editor disagrees with the decision of the editor that closed the RM discussion? Obviously the first step is to discuss with the editor in question, but where would an editor go after that? Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Request move from draftspace for move that was made out of process
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Per WP:DRAFT, articles should only be moved to draftspace if "there is no evidence of active improvement." Two articles that I was actively editing, Draft:Tyler Glaiel and Draft:Florian Himsl, were moved by User:TheBirdsShedTears to draftspace (after their speedy deletion nomination was rejected for one of them). The last edit to Draft:Tyler Glaiel was a mere 3 minutes before TheBirdsShedTears's move, for Draft:Florian Himsl, 7 minutes before the move. It should have been obvious to TheBirdsShedTears that I was actively improving the articles. They were obviously moved out of process. As such, I want to request the moves are undone, but it's not possible to use Template:Requested move to request they are moved back because (error message:) "Template:Requested move is not for moves from draft or user space." But how then are we supposed to cancel moves that were obviously made out of process? Could somebody help me out please? I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure this out, time I'd much rather have spent on improving the articles.Thisisarealusername (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if an article is being worked on, then draftification isn't supposed to happen, but mistakes do occasionally happen. Thisisarealusername, you can just move the draft back. As far as I can see, there isn't anything that's stopping you. – Uanfala (talk)12:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to move them - got an error message when attempting to use the move function. But choosing "revert" from the editing history, I was able to move one of them back.12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
If you tried moving the draft back in the 28 minutes after the initial draftification, then you wouldn't have been able to because during this period, the article redirect had a speedy deletion tag and so was blocking the move [10]. If you try the move now, you should be able to complete it. – Uanfala (talk)12:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Paul Cotton
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I cannot edit this page. It seems semi-protected. Please un-protect the page so us IPs can submit a request. In the meantime, I guess I'll submit my uncontroversial technical request here:
Does being involved in a Move Review discussion of a given RM constitute being WP:INVOLVED in the reviewed RM once it is reopened?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If an admin/closer is involved in a move review, establishing an opinion on whether the RM being reviewed was closed properly, and the result of the review is that the original RM is reopened, can that admin/closer then (re) close the RM, or are they WP:INVOLVED?
@Born2cycle: My 2c: MR is typically focused on procedural aspects of a RM (rather than on re-litigation of the substantial issue). An endorsement or a critique of a closure and/or procedural matters does not constitute an opinion on the substance, so I don't think that this makes the editor necessarily involved. Of course, leaving this to someone else might be a good idea (it's best to avoid any appearance of involvement), but Requested Moves tend to be short on personnel, and sometimes there is no one around to close the request. No such user (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to change the name of this page from "Industrial Internet Consortium" to "Industry IoT Consortium (formerly Industrial Internet Consortium)"
This will reflect our new name and branding, as of August 2021.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can someone please help me with this? I had already moved the page of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary to Priyanka Choudhary and then made the edits to remove WP:BLPPROD but I don't know what happened now? It is appearing as two different articles. I'm really very sorry if I did some big mistake but please someone help me. Someone please merge the page as one page which should be named as only Priyanka Choudhary because that is her professional name. Please someone help with it and I'm really sorry for whatever happened. Sorry!--Creativitylove (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You Created Two Article with (Same Name, Same Contents, Same Refs) Priyanka Chahar Choudhary is prosed for Deletion
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am a auto confirmed user with more than currently 100 edits. Can i get the access to move pages from draft to article namespace!... Thank you
Regards, 0"cleopatra"0 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
You actually aren't an autoconfirmed user yet. You should get the right tomorrow, though, since your account will be 4 days old by then. Surachit (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I hope, now i am eligible for moving articles from draft to Mainspace. I have already completed 4days with more than 110 edits now. If possible, let me know any other requirement...! Thanks
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This RM was created by a user in violation of their ban (through a sockpuppet), but it has support of all !votes, and the pageviews demonstrate the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should it be closed as "moved" anyway? VRtalk15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
If the consensus of the non-socks is clear, I don't see why the fact that a sock initiated the move would get in the way of the consensus Iffy★Chat -- 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I would liken this to an AFD started by a sock - once there are significant opinions expressed, you can't just say "let's chuck out the entire discussion". Primefac (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Elapsed RMs with no (policy-based) participation
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
It's not uncommon to come across an elapsed (sometimes after one or more relists) RM with no participation and where the nominator's rationale is not policy-based (the vast majority of the time, this will be a WP:OFFICIALNAME-style argument about some relatively obscure organization changing its name). What's the best way to handle these?
What if closers had the option of closing such RMs as "technically moved"? i.e. move to the proposed title, but treat as equivalent to an undiscussed move done boldly or via WP:RMT (so the new title doesn't have an automatic presumption of being supported by consensus). I think this would help keep the backlog lighter, and help focus the current discussions list on moves that actually require discussion, rather than endlessly relisting obscure articles. If an RM has been open for 7 days without attracting any participation, how likely is it that it was controversial in the first place?
Here are three examples currently in the backlog (no participation at time of writing, except one "per nom"):
I've actually left a closing comment along these lines at least once in the past, but I'm interested in hearing how others think this situation should be handled, and whether people think it might be worth mentioning something along these lines at WP:RMCI. We already have a related note there at WP:RMNOMIN about closing discussions with no participation, but it's unclear how an insubstantial nomination statement should interact with the "unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy" clause there. Colin M (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If a proposal has little or no participation, then the close should (the majority of the time) reflect that, and the page moved. If the closer does not feel that the proposal is in line with policy, then instead of closing the should put in a !vote themselves, which will allow the next closer that comes along to see the opposition and close accordingly. Just because you set out to close a discussion doesn't mean you have to. Primefac (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Primefac. When I encounter such situations, I usually close them with a rationale such as "Moved per reasonable nom, unopposed." However, I typically get to those only after they had been relisted; I agree that we could expedite them after 7 days without relisting (particularly in cases of obscure organizations). No such user (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I close unattended RMs (as moved) as an unopposed request. I agree with No such user that these shouldn't be relisted (per WP:BURO). Cheers, Number5709:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I just have a hard time seeing "the official name changed" as a reasonable nom. (But maybe I'm just being overly persnickety. In the cases of relatively obscure situations, I suppose the official name is often also the WP:COMMONNAME.) Colin M (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I suppose you're being overly persnickety. Situations where an organization (particularly a company) continues to be referred to by their old name by the media are very rare; this may happen after a string of splits, mergers or acquisitions where the "new company" is just a shade of the old glory. I routinely grant such move requests in the cases of obscure organizations. No such user (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
In general, I'd agree with Primefac and No such user: either close it if it looks sensible or oppose it if it doesn't. When I'm in a closing mood, I do often !vote instead where it looks like that can help unwedge an unclear situation; just don't do both. For name changes to weird catchy stylings, I'd probably oppose; otherwise, lacking objections, probably move. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I do the same thing. If it's policy-based or reasonable, I close it as moved noting a lack of quorum. If it's a bad rationale, I oppose it. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Did I do this right?
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm pretty sure I fudged something up at Fujiwara no Kenshi (994-1027). The original creator reverted my attempt to move the page to what seemed like a more reasonable title some years ago, and told me that I need to discuss such moves beforehand. Since my original move was a technical fix rather than anything I believed would be controversial, I don't think this was accurate policy-wise, but I decided to play it safe by opening an RM this time. However, I pinged the article creator, who immediately showed up and said they would be fine with one of the alternative proposed titles. Since I too had no problem with the said title, I figured I might as well undo my RM and make the move myself, but since I didn't "close" the RM but rather simply removed the template like at an expired RFC, I think I might have done something wrong... Can someone look at this? (You have my permission to undo the page move if necessary.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sometimes I come across RM where a proposal has support, but then someone proposes a new name and it remains unopposed as it was proposed late into the discussion. IMO, the best way forward to is ping the previous participants and ask if they'd support or oppose the new suggestion, like I did here. Is that ok? Does this make me involved and thus ineligible to close the discussion?
I would say pings like that are entirely appropriate and should not preclude you from closing the discussion later. (Of course it's possible to imagine a hypothetical ping that does evince some bias regarding the outcome of the discussion, but I don't think that's what's going on here, and such a case would probably be problematic wrt WP:CANVASS, regardless of whether the pinging editor went on to close the discussion.) Colin M (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on whether it's controversial or not. If you make a ping that lead to clear consensus without objection, then no problem. If after your ping there's controversy, and you close in favor of those who responded to your ping, then you'll be open to complaints; so don't close in that case. Let someone else assess. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
How much weight to give to a COI !vote
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A disclosed paid editor has made a policy based argument in favor of name change for the subject of the article. I'm inclined to give their !vote as much weight as I'd give to a non-COI account. I couldn't find anything at WP:COI that would suggest otherwise.VRtalk12:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe your line of thinking is accurate. COI isn't a prohibition from participating in discussions, making neutral changes to articles, etc. It just means that there is a conflict of interest where they will clearly want XYZ as it relates to the article subject. Making a policy-based argument for a page name change shouldn't be invalidated simply because they have a COI. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there a preference for status quo?
Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
Suppose there is a move request X → Y. Supporters of both X and Y present equally convincing policy based arguments and are roughly equal in number. Should the move request be closed as "no consensus", meaning maintain the status quo as X? Now suppose that supporters of Y give slightly more convincing arguments or !votes for Y have a slight numerical majority. Should this be closed as "no consensus" (meaning maintain status quo of X) or "moved to Y"?VRtalk13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
To answer the first question, yes, the result would be no consensus and the article stays at the same title (an exception would be if the article had been recently moved without discussion, and there was a discussion to move it back. In this case, even if the discussion ended as no consensus, the article should be moved back as the discussion shows there was not a consensus for the undiscussed move).
Regarding the second, policy/guideline-based arguments always take priority over numbers (unless there has been a very convincing rebuttal). Cheers, Number5713:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57 and Bagumba: thanks for the responses. Number 57, what I meant was suppose equally compelling evidence for WP:COMMONNAME was shown for both X or Y, and no other consideration was raised, but Y had a slightly more !votes? Or, what if slightly more convincing evidence for WP:COMMONNAME was shown for Y than for X, but on the whole the evidence for either seemed inadequate? It seems that both of those would also be closed as "no consensus" due to "lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens." Is that correct?VRtalk14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The short answer is that if the arguments are dead equal (or close enough) and the numerical tally is almost equal (like... 40-60% in support depending on total participation) then it would be closed with no consensus (and the page stays where it is, barring a reversal of a BOLD move). Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If equally strong policy-based arguments can be made for and against a given proposed move, that would suggest applicable policy needs improving. In fact, any “no consensus” case is a likely indicator of policy ambiguity with room for improvement. For example, this is why I have always opposed including the historical significance consideration at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it’s inherently contradictory in many cases, not to mention that historical significance is already adequately reflected in the likelihood-of-being-sought consideration. I mean, the degree to which a topic is historically significant objectively affects how likely it is to be sought. —В²C☎18:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Which is another example of where naming policy has gone awry. It’s perfectly reasonable to disambiguate consistently within a given group, but only those titles that require disambiguation. Titles in most groups only disambiguate when necessary (and consistently when they do, per their group-specific convention for disambiguation). There is no reason for UK Parliament constituencies to disambiguate unnecessarily. And then there would be no contradiction. —В²C☎04:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a fallacy to claim that move discussions that have a clear "no consensus" close due to valid policy-based reasons is a fault of policy per WP:NOT#BURO. We're not a burocracy and don't have hard rules - we do base everything on consensus and if that consensus is split, that doesn't meant policy is bad, just that there's two or more equally driving parts of policies related to names. --Masem (t) 05:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
An opinion is not a fallacy just because you disagree with it. In my opinion good naming conventions provide clear unambiguous guidance much more often than ours do, and ours could easily be much better in that regard. Yes we decide by consensus but consensus decides on the general guidelines and then those guidelines are interpreted in each specific case again by consensus. I’m just saying if reasonable arguments for and against can be made based on the relevant guidelines then the guidelines probably need to be reconsidered. And removing the historical significance consideration from PT as well as ditching unnecessary disambiguation in group specific conventions (by clarifying that CONSISTENCY applies specifically only to how titles of related articles are disambiguated) would go a long way towards easily resolving many of the proposals that end up in the RM no consensus quagmire. —В²C☎04:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This B2C desire to have algorithmically decided naming (which he's been pushing for over a decade) is never going to fly. We can't even get people to respect the policies and guidelines we have now in closing RM discussions, so having more strict algorithmic naming, even if it was a good idea, would not work. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Dicklyon, having algorithmically-decided naming is not a desire, it’s a fact. The only question is regarding the quality of the algorithm(s) used to decide what our titles should be. We can have inconsistent and contradictory ones, or we can have consistent and complimentary ones. The reality is no matter what we do we’re somewhere on the spectrum between using algorithms that produce random results, and having a perfect algorithm that always produces consistent results with no conflicts. In other words, the only question is really about where we are on that spectrum. I think we should be honing our policies and guidelines to nudge us toward the consistent algorithm end of that spectrum. —В²C☎07:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's your dream. To me, it seems nutty. And when I see you speak up in RM discussions, you are more often than not arguing to do the opposite of what the guidelines suggest. So I'm not buying it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I can’t tell if you’re serious or playing dumb.·Improving the guidelines so that they are more consistent with each other is a multi-pronged approach that includes disagreeing with the ones that are currently inconsistent. So of course I sometimes argue to do opposite of what the inconsistent ones suggest. That’s the point. What exactly are you not buying? —В²C☎05:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Tiger King 2
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is a long RM discussion here that is 19 days old. I'm wondering if it is ok to post this at WP:CR? Can RMs sometimes be posted at WP:CR like RfCs and other discussions? VRtalk14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case the RM was relisted 4 days ago and someone just added a !vote earlier today, so it might not be ready for closure. Station1 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
moving GA/FA
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
A few weeks ago, I was told on my talkpage that the GA/FA reviews/properties must not be moved, and be left where they are (assumedly the creation place of the review). Is that really correct? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk)18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean it kind of makes sense. All the material of an article including the title is assessed to make a GA or FA I suppose. Changing the title could move it away from that status at least in theory. I would think a Requested Move would always be required in these cases, point out that it's a GA/FA and with perhaps a higher burden for acceptance. Possibly this should be written into this page. That is my personal opinion. Herostratus (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Herostratus and Uanfala: yes. That's what I meant, I apologise for being vague earlier. What I meant is, what should we do if we close RM of a GA/FA? Then should we move the review subpage along with the article? In my opinion it should be moved along with the article like Uanfala has explained above. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk)18:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, OK, in that case, yes of course any subpages and related pages should be moved also; I would think this would be purely technical, as who would object? Particularly since the redirect is left in place. (FWIW and off-topic from OPs question, I still think that moves of FA/GA should be pretty rare.)Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Off on the same tangent, I think FA/GA moves are rare only because FA/GAs are rare. I don't think we should treat these articles differently when it comes to renaming: most moves happen because of factors that are independent of the content of the article (like presence of other articles with the same name, or changes to the naming conventions), and when the content is relevant then its quality usually isn't (e.g. a change of official name that happened after the FA review). – Uanfala (talk)19:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It breaks the links in the GA project archives, and obviously doesn't reflect the title at the time it was assessed. It's a record, not a subpage. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: redirects do take care of the broken links. Not sure about the subpage vs record issue. Even though it is a rare incident, what if another page comes in place of the GA/FA? The record page will be subpage of a different article. It would be totally confusing then, and will not serve the desired purpose either. It will be a lot inconvenient as well. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk)00:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
what if another page comes in place of the GA/FA - are you meaning what if a new article with a different subject is created with the former title? Well, again, GA and FA review pages are not subpages, so the review won't be "attached" to the new article any more than it was the moved article. There may be hiccups with starting a review for the new article, but what about if there had previously been a different article with reviews at the title the original article is being moved to - same issue potentially faced if you want to move the review page. But let's not worry about situations that don't exist. You say you don't understand what I said about subpage vs. record. This might be long, but I'll try to be clear, then. The review pages are records for the GA and FA process, not some current and updating subpage of the articles themselves (like talk pages [subpages] vs archives [records]; I believe we also do not move/change titles of archived pages unless not doing so would interfere with an archive bot or sorting structure). Speaking of, moving the review pages makes, for as far as the bots facilitating the processes understand, a new review, which is what confuses the system. Besides the logistical issues, there is the review accuracy reason to want to maintain the review as and where it was originally: the article was called X, not Y, at time of review, which should be reflected; nothing about the review should be retroactively amended. And, really, the only reason to move the review pages would be the argument that it is a subpage of the article and should be moved for sorting purposes, but 1. it isn't, and 2. it should be sorted by GA/FA under the title with which it was reviewed. Like, the content of the article with its [New Name] is not what was reviewed, so as far as the review is concerned, the article it assessed is still at the old name (the stable version, if you will). If no article with [New Name] has been reviewed, why should a record show such a thing? It shouldn't. (This is probably more important for FAs, which aren't expected to change content very often, but it still messes up logistically and theoretically with GAs.) Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get the record/subpage distinction. Something like Talk:A Voyage Round the World/GA1 is indeed a record of a GA review, but it is a record that is located at a subpage. As far as I can tell from the above, the only practical issue would arise with the bot, but only if that bot has some internal list of GA reviews and it will hiccup if that list doesn't match the actual pages; is that how it is set up? – Uanfala (talk)02:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I routinely move GA subpages when I move pages. There’s a reason the move page includes that specific option. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Not moving the GAN page breaks the link from Template:GA. They should probably always be moved, the old title should be evident from the review and the page history. CMD (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
One of the main reasons to rename the review pages, would be if a new topic is made under that name, and then went to GA, it would be quite confusing. The thing is, it's so rare to begin with. I don't think it matters so long as the history template and such are also updated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
New guide to RM/TR admin-needed
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since the introduction of the "administrator needed" section to RM/TR, there's been confusion about what moves require one. I've just written and linked Help:When to place technical requests in "Administrator needed", which aims to explain the issue to editors who might not be familiar with RM/TR's inner workings and what is or isn't possible for non-admin page movers. It's still a bit rough around the edges and I'm happy for people to take a look at it, smooth out any such edges, and give their thoughts. Vaticidalprophet05:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As an unregistered user making my first visit to this page, it appeared at first sight that it's impossible for me to request a technical move, because of the semi-protection. It's not clear that the instructions are in fact transcluded from another, editable page. Could something be done to clarify this? (By the way, I haven't made that request, not because I couldn't figure out how, but because it turns out there are several pages involved and the whole thing needs more research. Hopefully I can offload it onto an appropriate Wikiproject...) 89.168.66.108 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisting uncontested moves
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The note under WP:RM#Backlog currently reads "Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation." I propose changing the 2nd sentence to "Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with no consensus and minimal participation." Running through the backlog today I've noticed that there's a tendency to relist requested moves which have received little participation even if nobody has objected to the move. IMO if nobody has objected to the move, then the discussion should be closed and the page moved. If there is a reason not to move the page, then the correct response is to oppose the move, not to relist the discussion. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, although I'd suggest to "Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with no consensus." – relisting uncontested proposals is a failure of WP:NOTBURO IMO. If no-one has objected to a move after a week, it can reasonably be considered uncontroversial and should be processed. Cheers, Number5720:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Not added to list
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Noted, but this was sorta touched upon the previous RM, and the proposer didn't answer that suggestion until the original RM was closed. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
review please?
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"Requests to revert undiscussed moves" template default
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The template listed under the section "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" currently has a default of "discuss=yes". Since this is apparently in conflict with the technical aspect of immediate reversion of "undiscussed moves" upon request on this project page, should not the default in that template be "discuss=no", or else include no "discuss" parameter at all? Note the recent confusion at this edit because the requesting user (me) used the default, which generated an edit for a formal Move Request on the subject article's talk page, which the requesting user (me) executed in good faith. Alternatively, should the template generate a notice on subject article's talk page that a technical request is in process? I'm sorry to disturb you, @Tamzin:, et al. --Bejnar (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk page not moved
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorted out (by ultimately reverting the undiscussed move). There's a nasty bug in MediaWiki when moving an article over redirect: if the article redirect is overwritable but the talk pages aren't, it will issue an unclear prompt and upon confirmation move only the article, with talk pages left intact (and usually divorced from the appropriate article). No such user (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I made a web app 3 years ago that indexed all RM discussions up to that point and allows searching them in various ways (e.g. you can sort by number of participants in the discussion, or by date; this page lists articles that have the most RM discussions; this page groups discussions by the policies invoked in those discussions - e.g. here are all discussions invoking WP:INCDAB; it also has a fun afdstats-style user stalking feature - e.g. @Rreagan007:, here are the statistics about your RM participation up to 2019). I don't think anyone ever really used it other than me (maybe my fault for not advertising it), so I never bothered to update it with more recent data. If you're curious, you can read about the scraping strategy I used here. Wbm1058's idea of using the history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts is a clever one that I didn't think of, but it looks like the page only goes back as far as June 2016 (whereas my dataset includes RMs from much earlier than that). Colin M (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If we find a bunch of extremely closely knit articles being considered for RMs under the same argument, but each one of them separately, can we (as non-admins) merge the various RMs to a central discussion? So that the discussion can develop in a single location rather than getting split across many talk pages. Obviously, such a merge will mean that the closer will link to the merged location during the close. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)09:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
That depends editor CX Zoom. If you mean RMs that are all nominated by the same editor, then that editor should have used WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves in the first place. If you mean RMs that are nominated by different editors, then you'll run into the problem of different timestamps for the RMs, so merging those would probably not be a good idea. The RMCD bot is probably not configured to recognize merged RMs with different proposers each with a different timestamp. I think there have been times when RMs have been merged, but they were probably done by admins or other experienced editors. Seems like a rare situation. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there14:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry I suck too much to jump through a zillion hoops, but Rubens' tube should be at Rubens tube: I can't move it myself because the target page already exists (probably as a redirect), and I know from experience that if I swap them, some mindless autobot will revert it. But you can tell by reading the academic literature that nobody puts the apostrophe there. Just like "Hawking radiation" not being "Hawking's radiation". Equinox◑12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I tried. However in practice I find that anything I do on Wikipedia gets reverted and shit upon and it's easier to draw attention on talk pages. Let's see how it goes. Thanks for trying to help. Equinox◑14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the only thing more controversial than undiscussed page moves is when people try to change the parameters in a template! The proposal looks to be set up correctly, though; good luck. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
"Request all associated moves explicitly"
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
It appears many editors don't know how to request X→Y, Y→Z page moves. Even though they make it explicitly clear in the body of the rationale. After significant participation in a RM, one might not want to deny a page move per WP:BURO, but the failure to file a proper request causes some of the involved pages to not get a notification about the RM and thus, all stakeholders might not be able to take part. The WP:Requested moves § Request all associated moves explicitly does tell the nominator what to do, which they probably not read. But I couldn't find what the uninvolved editor can do to resolve the issue. Can anyone help? ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I could've created a multi-move request and put RM notices on the pages manually and relist the RM for more participation, but I do not know what its impact on RMCD bot will be. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)15:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
If the single-move request is turned into a multi-move request, and the RM notices are manually placed, when the discussion is closed RMCD bot should remove all of the notices, because it doesn't care what the RM looked like when it started, just what it looked like when it finishes. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean, it's just a case of adding in extra lines until all of the proposed moves are accounted for and adding |multiple=yes to the nomination (though I do suppose the latter is the relevant bit). Primefac (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree it's very simple after one has done it a few times. I know I sure messed it up the first times I tried to fix these, and I had to go back and fix my messes. After the first ones it becomes pretty easy, and I'm not sure how best to word any instructions on how to do it, other than what you said, Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there16:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
(solved) Can't add request
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I can't add what I think is an "Uncontroversial technical request":
{{subst:RMassist|Filmsite.org|Filmsite|sites are named with (say) [[IMDb]] as article name and [[IMDb.com]] as redirect}}
P.S. Solved it, but when you are on Wikipedia:Requested moves the page can't be edited and it's not obvious you first have to click down into the "technical request" subpage (which can be edited). So it's solved for me, but that interface kinda sucks. 77.147.79.62 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
BRFA filed – wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Done @Kraose:, In the future, you can make similar reqeusts at WP:RM/TR. Iffy★Chat -- 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Resolved