User:Mike Cline/Arguments to avoid in Requested Move discussions

There are arguments you should avoid in Requested Move discussions. Having closed a great number of Requested Move discussions over the years as well as participating in spirited debates around Wikipedia Title Policy and the Wikipedia Move Review Process the one truth is that where a topic has reasonable alternate titles to choose from, or where there exist other topics that could reasonably share the same title or be confused with it, then there can be no PERFECT article title. When such concerns are balanced against Title Policy, Naming Conventions, and our Disambiguation and Manual of Style Guidelines, the perfect title is a rare thing.

The other unfortunate truth is that a Wikipedia article can have but one title, no matter how imperfect, and Wikipedia can have only one article with a given title, no matter how many notable John Does there may be in this world. For this, and a great many more reasons, editors routinely move articles unilaterally to new titles or, when such a move might be controversial, initiate Requested Move discussions. I estimate that 10-15 requested move discussions are initiated every day. Most are fairly benign and easy to decide based on consensus and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, there are always a few every month that turn out contentious and are a challenge to resolve. And generally, when they are a challenge to resolve, someone—the requester, an opposer or supporter—is likely to be dissatisfied with the closer's decision.

No matter who participates in Requested Move discussions--experienced editors savvy about title, disambiguation and style guidelines or editors passionate about a specific article – I firmly believe they are sincere in their positions supporting or opposing requested moves. Such sincerity goes only so far and there are, in my view, arguments that all editors should avoid in Requested Move discussions. Some arguments contribute little to the discussion and do not have any bearing on the title decision. Others merely complicate the closing decision and in my experience, a complicated titling decision is more than likely to favor the "status quo".

Our titling policy and all related guidelines exist for one purpose: crafting the most appropriate titles for our encyclopedia's articles. With 5,000,000 + articles some won't be perfect and there's lots of maneuvering room. RMs play a key role in the overall process. RMs are not, in any sense of the word, competitions; and arguments that appear competitive should be avoided. Avoiding these kinds of arguments will go a long way toward making the process work better.

The familiarity argument
Traveling the path of the anecdotal fallacy, you should avoid arguments in titling discussions that generalize from personal viewpoints. Just as with article content, reliable sources hold sway. What you know or believe is irrelevant, but what you know about is important. All editors have unique experiences and backgrounds-geography, ethnicity, language, culture, politics, government systems, professional skills, age, gender, etc. all give us familiarity with the things around us. But that familiarity is not relevant to article titles. You may have grown up under the shadow of the mountain you know as Old Mossyback but to the rest of the world, sources tell us the mountain's name is "Mossback Peak".
 * "Where I come from these hills are called .....",
 * "I've never heard this company called that name"

Although an editor's professional expertise is a valued resource for the encyclopedia, such expertise should be used to find and contribute reliable sources to the title discussion. The "I know what I am talking about." argument doesn't help the title discussion.
 * "I am a mathematician and the term Tetra Poly Octagonal Binomial Equation is never used. We always call it a Tetra-POBE regardless of what the sources say."

Avoid the familiarity argument and find reliable sources to support your position.

The clairvoyancy argument
I have always found it fascinating that one editor thinks they can "predict" or "divine" what millions of readers are actually searching for. Of course "page views" give a history of how many readers actually visited any given title, but it provides no insight into what they were actually searching for. Our system of redirects ensures the most popular topics get hit by less than precise searches, but one editor's prediction that they know what millions of readers are searching for is a poor argument for a title move.
 * "Most readers will be searching for this name not the other one."
 * "Readers searching for the history of Plutonium Province will be WP:Astonished to find the article at Plutonium (city-state)".
 * "When readers type in Plutonium they are obviously looking for the element not the province".

Avoid predicting what millions upon millions of readers will be searching for; instead provide the reliable sources that show what millions of writers have already called it.

More notable!
A sub-set of this argument is the one where an editor claims Bob Plutonium (scientist) is more notable than Bob Plutonium (author). As a Primary Topic argument, this one falls prey to the Wikipedia concept of Notability. From WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." and "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The argument that one topic is more notable than another topic is really trying to say: This topic is more famous, more popular or more important than another. Those are tough things to support conclusively, but if they can be, the arguments should address fame, popularity and importance not Notability.

Attempts to discredit clearly reliable sources because they don't support your position
Our reliable source guideline is pretty clear and with 5,000,000+ articles on topics that have passed the notability hurdle, most experienced editors don't have any difficulty determining whether a source meets our reliability criteria or not.
 * "Homer Doe's work on the History of ancient Plutonium isn't credible and it got bad reviews"
 * "The New York Times got this wrong and just because they call it Plutonium Province doesn't make it right"

Let positions that rely on clearly reliable sources stand on their merit and don't attempt to discredit the source just because you don't agree with it.

Selective application of policy, guidelines and MOS
Our title policy and associated policies/guidelines (naming conventions, MOS, disambiguation, NPOV etc.) are admittedly somewhat of a minefield of contradiction and tension, although each is well intended. Requesters, opposers and supporters in RM discussions should consider the body of title related policy and guidelines holistically and avoid arguments that selectively favor one aspect of policy while ignoring or discrediting others.
 * "RECOGNIZABLE dictates the title stay at Plutonium Province and not be moved to Plutonium (city-state) even though the Naming conventions (geographic names) says it should.

I disagree with the guideline argument
This is an argument that should always be ignored by any experienced closer.
 * "I think the MOS is wrong when it comes to lower casing titles"
 * "I think we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME for this title"
 * "The naming conventions for ships is wrong and this article should be called Old Ironsides not USS Constitution."

If a policy or guideline requires change, then those discussions should be held on the appropriate policy or guideline pages, not in an RM. I have closed many RMs as status quo but directed requesters to guideline and policy pages if they really thought the guidelines needing changing. Policy and guidelines will not change because of one RM decision.

The two edged sword&mdash;Other stuff
There is an essay that is often widely invoked in contentious discussions--WP:Otherstuffexists. Imitation or following what's already been done is inherent in human nature. The other stuff exists argument in RM discussions can be useful but when its used to challenge long-standing naming conventions, it should be avoided. WP:Consistency is policy and is a valid reason to support a new title, thus citing WP:Some stuff exists for a reason from the "Precedents" section is a good contribution to the discussion. Care must be taken however when citing Other Stuff Exists with the intent of challenging "Consistency" policy.
 * "Just because there's an article titled: Iridium Province doesn't mean we should adopt Plutonium Province - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS"

Change Ups
Frequently, when the proposed title isn't clear cut, editors will suggest alternative titles. At the beginning of a discussion, such alternatives can gain support or be soundly opposed. However, after a full week or more of discussion, the introduction of an alternative title can be problematic as all the preceding opposes and supports haven't considered the alternative title. Although it may indeed be a good choice, the "suggested late" alternative is unlikely to get strong consideration by the closer unless previous participants weigh-in on the alternative. Adding multiple alternatives without providing sound arguments for each is equally problematic and generally doesn't move the RM forward.
 * "I think Plutonium (province) would be a better title than Plutonium (city-state)"

Pedantic, dogmatic, and badgering and loud shouting
Strong Opposes or Supports do nothing to move an RM any faster than a plain Oppose or Support as they come across as: Shouting in an RM is pretty much lost on me and when it's too loud, it's really easy to ignore. While it is OK to challenge the logic of a supporter or opposer on merit, repeatedly challenging every oppose or support is not justified nor does it do the challenger any good. Positions in RMs should stand on their merits, even if you disagree with them. Repeatedly badgering an opposer or supporter with pedantic and dogmatic arguments generally and eventually leads to uncivil behavior which does nothing but degrade the RM process. Repeatedly restating your position every time it is opposed or contradicted does not make it stronger. Your position, regardless of how many times you state it, should stand on its merit and is just one of the many others in the discussion.
 * "How dare you suggest this move"
 * "My support should count more that anyone else's should."

Attacking other contributors in the discussion

 * is biased and doesn't understand WP:Primary topic, their vote should be discounted.
 * is obviously a sock of
 * I think your arguments are insulting and show no understanding of the history of the Plutonium people. You are obviously a Plutonium denier.

Attempts to discredit or attack the motivations, arguments or positions of requestors, supporters or opposers on a personal basis should be avoided at all times. WP:Civil is the paramount policy here. Admittedly, there are instances where participants in RM discussion are or appear to be violating various Conduct Policies. It is also not uncommon for various participants in RMs to have a long history of behavior and/or content conflicts on WP. Regardless, the RM discussion is not an appropriate venue to hash out these types of issues. Take them to the appropriate investigation or noticeboards if the situation warrants, but avoid making any RM discussion personal. Stick to the merits of the discussion.

The foregone conclusion
A big red flag flies whenever a requestor, opposer or supporter implores an admin to close the discussion Now!
 * "Do it now, the decision is obvious. Hurry, before someone comes up with some real evidence to the contrary."

Although there are a few other essays that capture this sentiment, this one says it all: The world will not end tomorrow!. Whatever title is bestowed on any given article, readers will be able to find it. The current title may not be the ideal title and you may not agree with it for any number of valid reasons but if it doesn't change immediately or ever for that matter, The world will not end tomorrow!