Talk:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg)

Requested move 2 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. (non-admin closure) There is relatively wide consensus among most editors against the move and upholding the result of the recent RfC. Most editors agree that because fabergé eggs are generally named after other things that the parenthetical disambiguation is advantageous in this case. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

– The parenthetic disambiguation in each of these titles is unnecessary. Their unadorned names are unique; we have no other articles that share any of these names. There is no ambiguity to resolve for any of them. For most of these, the articles were recently at the unadorned base names anyway, but were moved after what I believe to be a recent misguided RFC that was not announced at WP:RM and closed by a non-admin closer who I believe misread consensus. In any case, there is no basis at WP:AT or WP:D for including the parenthetic disambiguation in these cases. I understand the desire to have them all look the same as those that require disambiguation, but WP is replete with counter-examples. That's just not how we do things here. For example, we only add (film) in a title of an article about a film if the title is ambiguous. There are a few special cases, most notably most US cities, but the ", state" convention is arguably not disambiguation, as the ", state" is considered to be part of the name of each of these cities. By removing the parenthetic disambiguation on these titles we will bring them in line with policy, guidelines and conventions. Leaving them this way creates a precedent for ignoring our naming conventions and opens the door for much more ambiguity and conflict regarding what titles can be in such cases, a recipe for endless unproductive bickering. В²C ☎ 20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) → Danish Palaces
 * Alexander III Equestrian (Fabergé egg) → Alexander III Equestrian
 * Twelve Monograms (Fabergé egg) → Twelve Monograms
 * Basket of Wild Flowers (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Basket of Wild Flowers
 * Bay Tree (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Bay Tree
 * Blue Serpent Clock (Fabergé egg) → Blue Serpent Clock
 * Bouquet of Lilies Clock (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Bouquet of Lilies Clock
 * Cradle with Garlands (Fabergé egg) → Cradle with Garlands
 * Diamond Trellis (Fabergé egg) → Diamond Trellis
 * Fifteenth Anniversary (Fabergé egg) → Fifteenth Anniversary
 * First Hen (Fabergé egg) ‎ → First Hen
 * Imperial Coronation (Fabergé egg) → Imperial Coronation
 * Kelch Chanticleer (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Kelch Chanticleer
 * Lilies of the Valley (Fabergé egg) → Lilies of the Valley
 * ‎Nobel Ice (Fabergé egg) → ‎Nobel Ice
 * Red Cross with Imperial Portraits (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Red Cross with Imperial Portraits
 * Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) → Red Cross with Triptych
 * Rose Trellis (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Rose Trellis
 * Standart Yacht (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Standart Yacht
 * Steel Military (Fabergé egg) ‎ → Steel Military
 * Third Imperial (Fabergé egg) → Third Imperial
 * Memory of Azov (Fabergé egg) → Memory of Azov
 * Please refrain from referring to me as "inexperienced" or "misguided." To be frank, opening this discussion a couple of weeks after consensus was reached simply because you don't agree with it reflects poorly on you. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Close, too soon after the proper close of the (allegedly misguided) RfC. Using RM to overturn a recent RfC is an issue. Naming conventions are prone to being disconnected from community consensus. I suggest the allegedly misguided RfC RM should be taken to Move Review, and that at a minimum an RfC reversal should also be an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is going to proceed, I oppose the proposal to reverse the consensus of the RfC. The Fabergé egg's are named after things, and thus referring to them not in the context of "Fabergé egg" is ambiguous, not sufficiently precise.  "Technical" uniqueness on Wikipedia is not good enough, titles have to inform the reader of the content of the article.  Consistency between all Fabergé eggs is good, though it need not have had t have been parenthetical.  However, I see this was addressed in the RfC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close - I earlier closed an RFC asking about merging two templates. Not a single person complained that this was taking place on a talk page instead of at WP:TFD. I started the RFC because an RFC (in my opinion) garners a much wider audience than a one-week RM discussion. Additionally, as stated by SmokeyJoe, overturning an RFC with an RM is just bad form, especially when the ink on the RFC is barely dry. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I performed the closure of the RfC. As can be seen from the edit history, I spent 30 minutes reading through the discussion, reading through applicable policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, and then closed the RfC with a result that reflected the consensus throughout the entire discussion. To suggest that either I didn't know what I was doing, or I didn't understand policy (key word there), or (laughably) that my status as a non-admin has any reflection on the closure... well, it made me do the rarely seen "triple facepalm." Exemplo347 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you had to read "through applicable policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION" demonstrates your lack of experience. It's not just reading the words that gives one experience, but actually experiencing how they apply to a variety of different title situation over several years is what makes one experienced. --В²C ☎ 22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, we're almost at the point of casting aspersions now? My reading of their statement was that they made sure the policies were being followed, not that they had never read them in the first place. If you have a argument with an outcome, make an argument against the outcome. Please stop trying to paint like they are a pleb who has idea what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh, I think it's beyond that point, but because I'm a delightful ray of sunshine I'll simply smile and rise above it all. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This delightful sub-thread may have a place at Move review, but definitely not an article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, as nom. The outcome of the recent RFC is that we now have over 20 articles with titles that don't require disambiguation but which are disambiguated anyway. This proposal is to bring these titles in line with naming policy, guidelines and conventions by removing that unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC drew in many experienced Wikipedians who are not RM regulars. I read the RfC as having repudiated the alleged "unnecessary disambiguation" policy.   Where is the "unnecessary disambiguation" section?  It may require removal, and/or a policy page RfC to test it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * However, a more global RfC on WT:DAB showed consensus against unnecessary disambiguators. P p p er y 19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Showed consensus against unnecessary disambiguators"? That is not true.  Try reading the RfC you link.  It was "no consensus" on additional specific guidance, which is consistent with variation on a case by case basis.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is indeed overly precise and unnecessary disambiguation, which I don't usually support unless the title has a chance to be ambiguous/shocking even if it's not a title other articles share. Here, I don't see that as the case. For instance, what else could Kelch Chanticleer possibly be that requires disambiguation? If someone searches for that title, they're likely to know what it is, and if they don't, the disambiguation is not the only thing that will clue them in. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the disambig makes every page name meaningful, clear, unambiguous and consistent throughout.--Mervyn (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for moving of all of them. at least some of these articles might benefit from elucidation in some way. Individual Fabergé eggs are fairly obscure, and "Danish Palaces" unelucidated could confuse with List of castles and palaces in Denmark UPDATE: I see there is an article [[List of Danish royal residences]. Ditto for "Fifteenth Anniversary", "Lilies of the Valley", and "Rose Trellis", and maybe some others. It doesn't have to be parentheses, if the argument that "this looks too much like disambiguation" is taken to heart. It could be "Danish Palaces – Fabergé egg" or something else. "Fabergé egg Danish Palaces" maybe. Parens work OK for me, but I haven't thought deeply about nuances of titling issues and the repercussions of using parens for elucidation rather than strictly for disambiguation, and nominator has.


 * Actually "Danish palaces" should maybe be be a disambig page pointing to List of castles and palaces in Denmark and the egg (this doesn't preclude the egg from just being at "Danish Palaces" as the capitalization is different, but... not a huge fan of sending people to two entirely different places depending what capitalization they happen to use.)


 * Lillies of the valley should maybe be a redirect to Lily of the Valley (disambiguation) or something, "Fifteenth Anniversary" should possible have some way of getting to Anniversary, hatnote or dab I don't know... Bay tree is currently a disambiguation page... yes I understand that "Bay Tree" and "Bay tree" are technically different things, but rightly or wrongly people do consider "X Tree" to be proper names for tree species and type it that way...


 * Since some of them shouldn't be moved to their bare names (IMO), then it's a question of should some be moved and some not? Not sure, but possibly not -- the current situation looks neater anyway. Not voting on that, just opposing the concept that all of them should be moved.


 * Nominator makes the point that this is contrary to rule and common practice, and that stringently following rule and common practice has certain global benefits, such as reducing conflict and discussion time ("endless unproductive bickering"). Nominator may be right, and I don't know the answer to this larger point. At the same time, here we are, discussing, so.... everybody just relaxing about occasional exceptions being made, if there's a good reason (as there seems here) is maybe an alternate way to reduce discussions. It's a wiki. The titles of things aren't usually that important as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, making titling more consistent. P p p er y 19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically,, this proposal makes the titling of this sequence less consistent, since some will have a disambiguator and some won't. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes the titling of Fabergé eggs in general consistent with the way other sorts of articles (with a few exceptions) are titled on Wikipedia: with parentheticals when needed and without them when not. P p p er y 19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:PRECISE, part of the WP:AT policy, is quite clear that a specific naming convention can override the general rule not to include parentheticals (see the Leeds North West and M-185 examples cited in the policy). As the recently concluded RFC-decided, Fabergé eggs are a good candidate for such a naming convention, and reasonably so, since they tend to have names that could be a bit confusing out of context, which is heightened by inconsistency among the set. While my preferred option for the naming convention was the natural disambiguation ("... egg") that appears to be part of the common names of these items, I fully accept the outcome of the RFC. This is not the place to re-litigate it.--Trystan (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Article_titles specifically warns against using specialized names (which includes the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals in the title), and, more importantly, there is no specific naming convention justifying the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals that applies here. Also, WP:TITLECHANGES specifically states that "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves" (like this one is).  The RFC discussion you reference was not advertised there.  --В²C ☎ 00:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * В²C, The RfC was not advertised at RM? That is a serious failing.  RM regulars should be advised of an RfC to impact titling conventions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a naming convention; it was just established by the recent "RFC on egg naming convention". I don't see anything in Explicit Conventions that the RFC ran afoul of. Listing at RM would have been good, but it would be ridiculous to throw out the entire discussion because of that omission. It was advertised at the Village Pump and drew a large number of contributors.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP is written for the readers, not to illustrate a theory of naming, or to see how few words can be used in a title. . One key purpose of a name is to confirm that the reader has identified the article they want. If they are looking for an article about an art object, they need to know that the article is about an art object.  Sometimes a relatively fanciful name indicates this well enough, but a descriptive name almost never does. In this case some of the names are of each type, but they represent a uniform type of object, and the type is very well known and unmistakable. Readers are helped by consistency, and therefore the qualifier should be included.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Herostratus that moving all these articles would be problematic, since a number would be unclear without some kind of clarifier.  Moving some but not others would run afoul of AT's guidance that a good title is consistent in form with those of similar articles.  Moving none leaves a set that's clear and internally consistent, and is what I favor.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Category:Fabergé eggs displays beautiful consistency. This sort of proposal must destroy consistency, as many, such as Catherine the Great (Fabergé egg), cannot be unambiguated.  Looking at sources, mainly peripheral sources because most sources are firmly already in the context of Fabergé eggs, there are other ways to unambiguously name them, non-parenthetically.  These include:
 * Fabergé Catherine the Great egg,
 * Fabergé's Catherine the Great egg, and
 * Catherine the Great egg by Fabergé.
 * I would have preferred the last, if I had participated in the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The title should be at least somewhat descriptive. Without specifying "Fabergé egg" the title is not descriptive. Omnedon (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We use descriptive titles for ad hoc articles (e.g. "List of ...") and sometimes when disambiguation is required. Otherwise, especially without a specific naming convention to the contrary, normally we use the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject as the title of the article. Why an exception is warranted here is beyond me. --В²C ☎ 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As usual you are ignoring the titling criteria at Article titles. It does not simply come down to common name as you continually assert. Omnedon (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already thoroughly discussed and decided. No need for another discussion. And a particularly daft one to choose to place the RM on - are you really saying "Danish Palaces" is not ambiguous? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is no other destination for this title. It is currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. If that's an error then it's a separate matter. This proposal is about moving only those articles that are currently disambiguated and yet have WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs to them at the respective base name (mostly as a result of the RFC). I'm baffled by the support for all these unjustified primary redirects. --В²C ☎ 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary Redirects are of little importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your opinion of this guideline, it clearly states: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions." None of these cases apply here. The disambiguated form is not considered a different term in this context, these articles do not cover wider topical scopes, nor is there a specific naming convention that justifies the parenthetic remark in the title. If you disagree with the guideline, perhaps take it up at WT:D. If you want to argue WP:IAR, fine. But I don't see any acknowledgment of the guideline here, much less arguments for invoking IAR in each of these cases. Do you? --В²C ☎ 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a widely advertised RfC, advertised at the Village Pump, though not at RM, that was widely participated and a wide range of experienced editors, that repudiated the not-quite blank and white alleged policy prohibiting unnecessary disambiguation. Pppery 19:05, 3 May 2017, pointed me to an RfC that does not say what he alleged, but found no consensus that parenthetical disambiguation once invoked must be complete, which is quite a different question.  I repeat that the lines on PrimaryRedirect have little awareness amongst the community, negligible visibility on the product, unlike actual titles, and can be discounted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * List of castles and palaces in Denmark? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Danish palaces can reasonably redirect there of course, but probably not Danish Palaces. I mean, if someone bothers to type in Danish Palaces with the P capitalized, they're almost certainly looking for the egg. Anyway, that's an issue independent of this proposal, since Danish Palaces is currently a redirect to this article anyway. --В²C ☎ 16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Danish palaces was a redlink, I went ahead and created the redirect to List of castles and palaces in Denmark there, and added a redirect hatnote link to the list for this article. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question Why are people who are supporting this proposal ignoring the very clear criteria listed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (for example "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."), skipping over it so they can cherry-pick the bits they like? Is it deliberate? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do think it's being ignored? That reference to "the guideline pages referenced" refers to naming area specific guidelines where community consensus has been reached and documented for that naming area. Examples include Naming conventions (geographic names), WP:Naming conventions (films), WP:Naming conventions (flora), etc. There is no such guideline page referenced that justifies all this unnecessary disambiguation for this set of articles, and the basic WP:CRITERIA doesn't either, or this kind of parenthetic disambiguation when no disambiguation is required would be prevalent on many other articles.
 * Perhaps you're trying to say that a "new consensus [was] established through discussion" [in the previous RFC]? Again, the problem there was that discussion was not advertised at WP:RM, the standard place for listing title change requests, as specified on WP:AT at WP:TITLECHANGES: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. "  That said, this proposal to rectify what happened in that RFC was advertised at WP:RM, and still seems to be going down in flames, which I find to be astonishing. But that's what happens sometimes when editors focus on trying to establish consistency among article names within one particular area, instead of maintaining consistency with all article titles on WP (which includes disambiguation only when necessary). --В²C ☎ 00:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RM should not be used to reverse recent RMs. WP:MR is advised, this was WP:BLUDGEON.  There is empirical wisdom in Moratoria.  I think the advice at Renominating_for_deletion applies very similarly to revisiting titling discussions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no recent RM to be reversing. There was no RM at all (prior to this one) regarding the recent moves of the these titles. That's one of the points. --В²C ☎ 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:AT supports the current titles. For example, it states: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." A general audience would have no idea that "Danish Palaces" is a Fabergé egg; only specialists would know that. The current titles better serve the interests of readers than the ones you suggest. This is reflected in the recognizability and conciseness criteria as well, not to mention consistency (since all the Fabergé egg articles follow the current naming convention). Omnedon (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am passingly familiar with Fabergé eggs, but would not recognise most of the list if presented in isolation out of context. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the usual reasons; disambiguation is better than ambiguity. This is the usual B2C conciseness uber Alles nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity to disambiguate. --В²C ☎ 18:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The base names are ambiguous. They do not convey the topic. That's unless you are locked into a narrow perspective of the technical concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This could be just a semantics dispute. "Disambiguation" here is being used to mean two different things, I think -- by one editor to mean "make the title less ambiguous, vague, unclear" and by another editor to mean "differentiate between two similarly-named Wikipedia articles". When we use the same term to mean two different things we tend to talk at cross-purposes. "Danish Palaces" does not, technically, require disambiguation in the narrow sense of there being another article with the same title. It does, or may be argued to, require elucidation to further explain to the reader, coming across it or seeing it in a search results list etc., what the article is about.


 * In an ideal world, we would maybe use "disambiguation" to mean the one thing and "elucidation" or "expansion" or whatever to mean the other. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Unlike what is said above me, there is no ambiguity here, thus no disambiguation is needed. If you want these to be disambiguated, then we might as well disambiguate everything.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I see several titles (e.g. Standart Yacht, Rose Trellis, Danish Palaces, and Bay Tree) that cry out for further qualification, in that it's likely that people would type in just those words to find out about something definitely not Fabergé or egg related. Those titles can exist without disambiguation in part only because of their second words' being capitalized, a subtle distinction for people to have to make in searching the drop-down list in the search box. Also, opposing for the reasons of this attempt at reverting the RfC being placed in an even more out-of-the-way place than the RfC (and my having to add yet another page to my watchlist) and its being too soon (wait to see what real implementational hiccups develop). Dhtwiki (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question for those who are opposing here... most of you are making arguments that should also apply to countless articles. Here are a smattering of examples: Anima nera, Timmins, Black Gravel, Raised by Another, Half Measures, Math and Other Problems, Grazing in the Grass, Jungleland, Malavoi, The Stand, The Moon Maiden, The Pearls, Welland, The Basket of Bread, Golf Ball. Can you identify which are works of art, city names, films, books, TV show episode names, etc., from just the titles?  These are not cherry-picked anomalies. That is, it's trivial to verify hordes of articles have titles that are not recognizable or meaningful to most without context, and yet we do not add descriptive information in parentheses to these titles. It is not and has never been a goal to make article titles recognizable to anyone unfamiliar with each article's topic. Also, please note that in each of these categories of titles there are also hordes of examples of articles with their titles augmented with additional descriptive information in parentheses - when it's necessary for disambiguation. Why should these articles about Fabergé  eggs be treated differently/specially?  --В²C ☎ 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many, though not all, articles could be better titled with more description, precision, and words. Up to about 42 characters, the title renders as a single line on standard output (PDF). The list of titles you just gave reads like a trivia question list for people to guess the topic, that is not good titling. Faberge eggs were deliberately named ambiguously, a common trick of many commercial products, deliberately seeking to be clever and gain attention by the very title alone, within the context of the type of product. This method does not produce good titles for scholarly articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * your personal judgement - "that is not good titling" - is very subjective. I don't make that judgement. I suggest neither should you. Thousands of WP editors have made it for us. There is no evidence that anyone but you, let alone any kind of consensus, has ever given consideration to the number of characters that can be rendered in a title line when deciding on a title.  The examples I listed and countless like them are the titles they decided were good. You don't agree with them. You don't agree with what has clearly been broad community WP:CONSENSUS regarding good titling since the dawn of Wikipedia. And it is by that contrary-to-consensus judgement that you and the other opposers here believe that removing the unnecessary disambiguation from these titles is "not good titling". I hope the closer of this discussion recognizes the difference between consensus among a few participants and community WP:CONSENSUS, and especially pays heed to WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. " I suggest the entire collection of WP titles reflects community consensus on a much wider scale than those few participating here, and what that wider consensus is about good titling is clear: we don't add descriptive information to the name of a subject in its title unless it is needed for disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many issues are subjective, that is not an issue as long as the project is run by people not algorithms.
 * "Thousands of WP editors have made it for us". Not true.  You misrepresent the numbers, and allusions to the "dawn of Wikipedia" are poetic nonsense.  Early decisions can often be arbitrary, and age is not a reason to not review a practice.  A small group, very small, established early practices, and one of the most important considerations in their reasoning was "What text in other articles are editors likely to want to wikilink", and this is a poor reason, because wikilinks can be piped, and because small editing convenience should not outweigh quality of the product.
 * A very short title produces a lot of white space at the top of the article, when rendered as a PDF. A long title takes multiple lines.  That happens at about 42 characters.  Based on this, I submit that the title is not problematically long per se at less than 42 characters, and that after that it is getting long.
 * The closer has little free play in making decisions. What I hope you realise is that you are frequently verbosely pushing a minority view and that you will moderate yourself. I also wish that you would use processes properly - if you disagree that the RFC-RM was properly done, take it to WP:MR, don't start a knee-jerk reverse RM.  Even if participants here agreed to move back, an RM doesn't overrule an RfC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Born2cycle, re "Here are a smattering of examples [...] Can you identify which are works of art, city names, films, books, TV show episode names, etc., from just the titles?" You can't, and you're saying that that's a good thing. But that's crazy.


 * It's like this. You go through life, and you make this decision, and that decision. You turn down this job, you take that one; you move to this city, you marry that girl, you hang out with these people; and so forth. And then one day you wake up and you're operating a rundown illegal bear-baiting operation beyond an abandoned strip mall in Merrimack, New Hampshire. So then what you have to is go Wait. This isn't working. Something went wrong, somewhere and maybe its time to start tracing back and possibly correcting.


 * Well, same deal here. You wake up and one day you're arguing that titles on the Wikipedia don't best reflect what's in the article and that's a damn good thing, then something's gone wrong somewhere. Maybe you're too rule-bound. Maybe you're interpreting the rules wrongly. Maybe you're valorizing poor rules and deprecating good ones. Maybe you're forgetting first principles. Maybe the rules themselves are defective. It doesn't matter. What's apparent is that somewhere back there you took a wrong turn. You know you did because you're arguing that it's a good thing if titles don't best say what's in an article. Your job now is to figure out where you're going wrong and address it, not dig in your heels. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except on WP first you have to establish that a consensus of the community agrees with you that something is wrong. If that were the case then countless RMs every day would be going the other way, and more and more titles would be changing to be of the descriptive kind. Just because you can find a group that agrees on an isolated case now and then is not that. --В²C ☎ 02:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Enh, I dunno. It's very hard to get rules changed here. A lot of times rules are just old pages from ten years ago or something that a relatively small number of editors pushed through. Lots of times rules are ignored for this reason. We are not really rulebound here -- WP:IAR and all. Rules are supposed to codify best/accepted practice, and that can change while the old rule remains. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the rules. The rules are supposed to reflect what editors actually do, and what editors actually do with respect to title decision-making is what I'm talking about. This is evident in how the vast, vast, vast majority of our articles are titled: Except for certain rare and mostly notable exceptions, we don't add descriptive information to the name of a subject in its title unless it is needed for disambiguation. We just don't. That's not a rule. That's a fact, made clearly evident by any survey of our article titles. I also happen to think our titles are this way for very good reasons, but that's beside the point. --В²C ☎ 16:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I've nominated Lilies of the Valley to change to point to Lily of the valley (disambiguation) for other meanings. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.