User:Born2cycle/misc2

BRACKET BRACKET essay||interprets=Article Titles, Disambiguation and WP:RMCI policy/guideline pages}}

This reminder for RM closers stems from the case of Yogurt, the previous title of which, Yoghurt, was disputed for seven years involving no less than eight RM discussions, each, until the last one, resulting in no consensus outcomes by each closing admin, despite strong arguments based in policy presented by the support side each time.

In that case the main support argument was that the original established title of the article was Yogurt, and it had been unilaterally moved inappropriately, contrary to WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, to Yoghurt. Further, it was argued, repeatedly, that if the article was moved to Yogurt, there would be no equally strong policy-based argument to move it back to Yoghurt. Indeed, since the move was finally made at the end of 2011, the eight-year-long dispute about the title of that article was settled and not raised again, anywhere (a year later, the yoghurt/yogurt spelling issue was raised in regard to another title, Strained yogurt, and was resolved in the same way, by omitting the h ).

Had any of the closing admins during all those years found in favor of the move because of the stronger policy-based arguments, that dispute would likely have been resolved much sooner. Years sooner.

The intent of this essay is to remind RM closers that finding consensus in favor of a move not clearly supported by a strong majority of the participants in the RM discussion is within the closer's discretion as long as the support arguments are stronger in terms of policy basis, and to encourage taking advantage of this policy-supported discretion especially when the certain conditions listed below are present. This essay provides RM closers with a way to explain their reasoning in these situations by referencing this essay, and also allows involved editors to cite the essay as applicable when appropriate. This should help resolve certain title conflicts sooner than they would otherwise be resolved.

Necessary conditions
RM closers are sometimes understandably reluctant to find consensus favoring a move in a discussion, based on stronger policy based arguments, when a majority of the participants does not support it. After all, those opposing may not take the time and make the effort to fully explain the policy based arguments opposing the move if it appears there is no consensus anyway. This is likely to be especially true the first time a given RM title change is proposed. But by the time there have been several such proposals made, it's more reasonable to assume that if there are strong policy-based arguments opposing the move, they have been presented.

In order for the Yogurt Reminder to apply to a given situation, all three of the following conditions should be present in a proposed move from a current title to a proposed title:
 * 1) The proposal to retitle the article from the current title in question to the proposed title has been challenged two or more times, but never strongly enough to achieve a majority of those participating favoring the move.  Also, support in favor of moving to the proposed title must be strong and based on sound policy-based arguments presented in at least one of the discussions (including possibly only the current one).
 * 2) If the move is made, there would be few if any strong (policy based) arguments to revert the move.  For example, when the article was still at Yoghurt, strong arguments for a Yogurt to Yoghurt move were not conceivable.
 * 3) Assuming the move is made, there are strong arguments to keep the new title (what is now the proposed title).  In the case of Yogurt, the strong argument to keep Yogurt is that it was the original title of the article, and that there was never demonstrated consensus to move it from that title.  However, other strong arguments may apply, like the title is clearly the most WP:COMMONNAME and more concise than the alternative being considered.

The Yogurt Theory
The Yogurt Theory is:

The theory is based on the following assumptions.


 * 1) A title that has been repeatedly challenged, is very likely to be challenged again, if it is not changed (NOTE: this condition alone is not a valid reason to change a title, and is not what is advocated in this essay).
 * 2) If the argument to a retain a title is not based in policy as well as the argument to move the article to the new title, and the retain argument is essentially about retaining the status quo, then if the article is moved to the new title, there will be no strong policy-based argument to reverse that move.
 * 3) Even if there is no majority support for a move in an RM discussion, if the policy-based arguments are stronger in favor of the move, the closer is instructed to find consensus supporting the move.   A history of repeated strong policy-based challenges to the current title is just more reason to find consensus in favor of the move despite a lack of a majority of the participants expressing support.

The purpose of reminding RM closers to find consensus per policy in these situations is to increase stability in title space.

Consistency with policy
This essay is consistent with all relevant WP policies and guidelines; it does not contradict or even disagree with any policy in any way. Any reading of this essay to suggest otherwise is evidence of a needed correction in the essay wording, or evidence of a misreading.

RM discussion closers have always had the discretion to find consensus in favor of moving even when there is not !vote majority support as long as the arguments in favor of the move are substantially stronger (better based in policy) than the oppose votes. Never-the-less, closers are often understandably reluctant to make a call not supported by a clear majority of those participating.

The purpose of this essay to bring attention to those cases where the arguments in favor are not only stronger, but where the only strong arguments to oppose are essentially to retain the status quo (necessary condition #2 - there would be few if any strong arguments to reverse if the move occurs), and there is a history of repeated attempts to make this move. In those cases, this essay encourages closers to determine consensus supports the move, a decision which has always been fully within their discretion.

Examples
The three necessary conditions listed above were present for each of the following moves.


 * Chicago, Illinois → Chicago
 * San Francisco, California → San Francisco
 * Seattle, Washington → Seattle
 * Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas
 * Boston, Massachusetts → Boston
 * Napoleon I → Napoleon
 * H0 scale → HO scale
 * Borderline case since there was only one previous challenge
 * Yoghurt → Yogurt
 * Public House → Pub
 * Independence Day (film) → Independence Day (1996 film)
 * Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton
 * While consensus was found to be in favor of the move in the most recent move proposal, a move review reversed that finding. That decision has been questioned.
 * Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben
 * Borderline case since there was only one previous challenge