User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 8

Administrator's Noticeboard discussion
Born2cycle, this is to let you know that I have posted a report about you at WP:AN. The link is Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245. I am sorry to have had to take this step, but your responses here indicate that you have no idea why so many people have a problem with your approach to editing. Since Huw explained the problem so clearly, I'm afraid this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and no amount of private discussion is going to avail. We will have to see what the community says. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Status quo stonewalling
Status quo stonewalling, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Status quo stonewalling during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Threat
B2C – I think this is the most instructive thing you said: I don't understand why my words are so commonly misunderstood like this. There is ample evidence of that throughout Wikipedia. As for the words I quoted being a “threat”, think about it. What did you expect to happen when you closed the paragraph with “Don't let that happen here” [or else]? Your track record of berating editors with positions you don’t like is hard to ignore. Whether you are right or wrong in any given discussion, the current blowup isn’t about the substance of your positions, but the manner in which you convey them. Here are two quotes I think you should take to heart. . We can leave it at that.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Was not the implied [or else] clear? ...or else the the problem will not be resolved and will continue, not or else bad things will happen to you!  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Email Me
B2C, please email me via my Wikipedia email. I have a private message for you. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

New more concise sig
To symbolize my new more concise commentary style, I have adopted this new more concise signature. --B2C 00:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How2title
I've made some updates to the How2title essay.

Thoughts/comments/suggestions/criticisms? Please leave them at Wikipedia talk:How2title. Thanks! --B2C 22:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * B2C, I think the one element of this essay that you've cleverly relegated to the last decision criteria is the reliance on naming conventions. I think that is bad advice, as a well written naming convention that has consensus should balance all the relevant policy/guideline/MOS criteria.  In other words, if a naming convention has consensus (if it exists for the relevant topic), then it should be the first criteria in choosing a title. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a word missing from the tag at the top; it is intended to supplement what? --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ✅.  --B2C 15:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mike, that's intentional. The point is, there is no need to refer to specific naming conventions if, for example, the topic has only one obvious name, and there are no other uses of that name.  The reason areas like ships, royalty and plants get specific naming conventions is because topics in those areas typically have multiple reasonable names.  But many of our articles have almost certainly been named without consulting any of these specific naming conventions. This may not be true for how titles are decided once an article's title becomes controversial and a change is proposed via an RM discussion, but that applies only to a minority of our titles. Ideally, the general criteria would be evaluated according to the same priorities each time by everyone, and so they would indicate the same title for everyone more often, and there would be even less need to consult specific naming guidelines, which would be especially valuable for the many topic areas that don't have specific naming guidelines.  So, I'd like to see us rely less on the specific guidelines, not only for this reason, but also because they tend to go off in their own directions, and create conflicts between them (e.g., plants use scientific names almost exclusively, but animals don't).  If they were consulted only when conflicts need to be resolved, they would cause much less of this kind of divergence and conflict.  --B2C 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you admit your bad advice (IMHO) is intentional. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'll try to explain the justification better there.  --B2C 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

JDLI essay content discussion - your input/help sought
For anyone who may be interested and perhaps inclined to participate, I find myself in a conflict with a perennial antagonist, about a section I recently added to the WP:JDLI essay which he has removed, and I seek to have re-inserted.

Details here: Wikipedia_talk:I_just_don%27t_like_it. --B2C 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chandra Levy
You have replies. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

reply. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WP amuses me
I can't help but find it amusing that we are disagreeing strongly on one move request and in near-complete agreement on another. It is the amusing thing about Wikipedia. Probably why AGF is a good idea. Hugs and noogies. Montanabw (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RM discussion you might be interested in
Hi, B2C! There are a pair of related RM discussions you might want to take a look at; your expertise could be helpful. One is at Talk:Brenda Ann Spencer and the other is at Talk:Cleveland School massacre. The potential confusion is that both are about school shootings at a school named Cleveland Elementary School - one in San Diego in 1979, and one in Stockton in 1989. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Joshua tree
Your opinion is needed at Joshua tree talk page. -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Third time is the charm
Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. LOL. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. --B2C 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death
Hello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a closure is, at best, unusual
If you disagree with a closure, take it elsewhere, but reverting the closure is a wholly inappropriate behaviour, perhaps even disruptive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia policy, debating style and perspectives
Hi B2C,

RE: [].

I don't think your are disruptive. Instead, you are easily perceived as overconfident in your own opinion and unwilling to consider flexibility to accomodate other opinions, and consistent, stalwart or unwavering in support of your position. To others, this can be frustrating. To you, do you find the others illogical or stupid? There is a problem with this, but I don't agree that it rises to "disruptive". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly I've encountered arguments that I considered to be illogical (and perhaps silly but I don't think stupid), but I don't recall ever considering any WP editor to be personally stupid or illogical. When I form and share an opinion I do so based on certain reasons, and I try to explain those reasons.  If this is viewed as over confident I'm not sure what to do about that.  I'm always open to being wrong.    --B2C 04:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

AE request result
Please read this discussion at WP:AE for details. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing RMs
Are you planning to close more RMs? I see you're quite good at it already. Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I'll help when I can.  --B2C 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)
Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the last RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

nash equilibrium
Do you know about Nash equilibrium? it may have some resemblance to your yogurt rule; in that there may be equilibria that are inherently unstable or non-optimal, but once you hit a nash equilibria, no-one benefits by trying to move it again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's related, but the three conditions that must exist for the yogurt rule to apply limit its applicability to certain very specific types of unstable situations. --B2C 02:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt Rule
You asked "Why is the WP:Yogurt Rule so hard to understand, and so easy to misunderstand?" That was probably rhetorical, but I have an answer. You have a knack for precise, succinct titles, but you haven't applied that at WP:YR. The text of the rule will easily be mistaken for a nutshell, which is unfortunate, because the text is rather wordy. I consider myself an intelligent person. I've read this box a few times and still don't really get what you're trying to say. Let me sum it up as I think I understand it. Feel free to adapt this as a nutshell description with any necessary changes. As I understand it, the yogurt rule is: If an article has been the subject of multiple RMs that are unsuccessful despite strong support, we should consider whether the proposed title might ultimately be more stable. Am I on the right track, at least? --BDD (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks. --B2C 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, good. I'll add that to the page. I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how many other editors will buy in. Hopefully we can work that out. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already incorporated some changes, but please go ahead and make further changes as you see fit. Much appreciated.  --B2C 22:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton move review
You are invited to join the discussion at Move_review/Log/2013_June. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Yogurt Rule
Yogurt Rule, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Yogurt Rule during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops!
I just read, for the first time, to the bottom of your very long userpage and I found an error. Under "Persistence pays" you list "La Jolla, California → La Jolla". That is not how the move happened. It was actually moved from "La Jolla, San Diego" to La Jolla. I hope you will fix this. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any transitory titles used temporarily between the original and current stable titles are normally not relevant for the point being made there. But, in the case of La Jolla, since the longer title was probably the impetus that helped achieve consensus support, I've added a note about that.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.   --B2C 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's still incorrect. It was "La Jolla, California" (an incorrect title since LJ is not a city) from 2003 to 2006. It was "La Jolla, San Diego, California" (correctly titled since it is a neighborhood of San Diego) from 2006 to 2010. Four years is not a "relatively brief stop". In December 2010 it was briefly moved to "La Jolla, San Diego", then to "La Jolla" as an outgrowth of that discussion about all SD neighborhoods. It would be accurate to say that is was moved from "La Jolla, San Diego, California" to "La Jolla" with a brief stopover at "La Jolla, San Diego". --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fixed accordingly.  Thanks!  --B2C 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest flare-up in the primary topic wars
OK, maybe not. But I definitely had fun writing this. Kauffner (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shit-stirrer. You must think you're being real clever with this dramatisation. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent conduct
As you know, I have had a couple of complaints about your recent conduct at two page move discussions, namely at Talk:Avatar and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I believe your posts regarding Avatar were excessive because you essentially took your arguments to AN/I where they don't belong; however, this occurred two weeks ago and I am reluctant to impose a sanction for disruption that is not current. Your contributions at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton are not clearly excessive but are bordering on it; I am therefore instructing you to disengage from that discussion. Also, the tone of this comment is inappropriate: mocking opponents in such a way may lead to blocks in future. I would also suggest that you refrain from reopening page move discussions that are less than a year old; while six months may be the de facto wait period, it may be seen as disruptive for someone in your circumstances to be revisiting previous page move requests that frequently. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with posting a lot in an RM? Nobody told IIO, that's for sure. Kauffner (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C has a history of verbosity (among other things) that many have complained about. It seems that that reminder may have been made as part of the editing restrictions. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Although User:Gatoclass clarified that his advice to you to disengage applied only to the original requested move, your efforts across two separate pages to harangue the closing administrator into reversing their action — despite a clear consensus to everyone except you — is the very reason there are restrictions in place. You've racked up over 10,000 characters and about 1,500 words in your campaign so far, the bulk of which are in two sections (both of which you created) on the talk page for that administrator. It's reasonable for you to request clarification of something, but clearly the point you're trying to make is rhetorical,, not collaborative. user: j (talk)  18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I anxiously await a response to both points. I'm done posting about it for now, awaiting explanation per WP:ADMINACCT.  But thank you for your concern.   --B2C 19:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you find what you're looking for, in that case. Take care,  user: j  (talk)  20:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hi B2C,

I know you are an expert in naming conventions and since I know close to nothing about this topic I thought I would use this as an excuse to visit with you. I saw news about a horrendous wildfire in Arizona, but could not find an article on Wikipedia about it, so I started one. A little while later I found the name of the existing article :-)

On a more serious note, I believe many articles in the Category:Disasters have a naming problem and I am not sure who at Wikipedia to raise this issue with - and whether I am the right person to do it in the first place. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Off the top of my head, it seems like "year state fire" should always be a redirect or title if there was a notable fire in state in that year. --B2C 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual titling, at least in the US, to list the fire under its official name, if it has one (Porter Ranch Fire, Day Fire, Schultz Fire - note the capital F in Fire), unless it is part of a larger article like November 2008 California wildfires or 2009 California wildfires (small letter w), in which case the names of the individual fires redirect to the general article. See Category:Wildfires in California, Category:Wildfires in Arizona, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Redirects as you suggest (2013 Arizona wildfire) sound like a good idea. Looks like they aren't always done but they probably should be, since (year) (location) (disaster) seems to be a common way of titling such things here and thus makes a likely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Starting an RfC?
An editor with as much experience as you should know that an RfC is not the first step in WP:Dispute resolution. It is completely inappropriate to have started one with zero prior discussion of the matter. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What dispute? I'm trying to ascertain community opinion on the question. --B2C 06:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:RfC? Because the first thing it talks about is discussing the matter on the associated talk page. It then suggests several alternatives, depending on what type of matter it is. You did none of that, instead opening a site-wide plebiscite asking the definition of a term. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 08:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what I think is the definition. And I agree with what you said.  But others have insisted it means the "community of participants".  I thought an unbiased poll RFC poll was the best way to establish what the community thinks.  --B2C 20:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you...
Regarding Hillary Clinton, I agree with your proposed move. In light of the controversial closure of the last move proposal, I intend to file a new proposal in a few months - right now I am thinking that mid-January 2014 will provide enough time for everyone who feels like they have "move fatigue" to be ready to return to discussion of the topic. It also provides more than enough time to gather evidence in support of this name being the correct title for the article. I would like to obtain public opinion polling data indicating what name people tend to spontaneously use when asked open-ended questions like "who do you think will run for President in 2016" or the like. I would certainly appreciate any assistance in building this body of data. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen some express the opinion that after an RM close, there should be discussion on the talk page, and, ideally, consensus building for a move on the talk page, before another RM is open. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I mean, discussion is fine, but requiring consensus to be established before starting another RM is unreasonable.  But just thought you should be aware of that.  If I can remember where that was discussed, I'll link to it. I don't know how compelling data like that would be.  After all, we're supposed to go by usage in reliable sources, not usage in spontaneous responses...  --B2C 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other reliable sources that have never been considered here, and probably tens of thousands of new ones that will be generated in the next few months alone. As for discussion, it has yet to stop in this matter. bd2412  T 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent bold edit to PRIMARYTOPIC
Prompted by an edit by that introduced some ambiguity to some language at WP:PLACE, on July 22, 2013 at 15:57 I made a bold edit to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify something that I thought was obvious and trivial: that only use of a term is the primary topic of that term. This clarification would also remove the ambiguity from anywhere where PRIMARYTOPIC was referenced in the way sroc did (assuming it applies to the only use case as well). These were the words I added:


 * Whenever a word, name or phrase is used to refer to only one topic on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic for that term.

My edit summary said: "The trivial case of primary topic - when a term refers to only one topic".

Within 7 minutes, at 16:04, the edit was reverted by.

So, per WP:BRD, I started a discussion about this at:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation

At 19:33, on July 22, 2013, 3 1/2 hours after my edit was reverted, and well into the above discussion, started a new section about me allegedly adding my own "untested" views into the guideline.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation

Some of the discussion about the edit spilled into this section, starting with asking for a "headline version of the problem with noting that if there's only one WP topic for a WP title, it's the primary topic for the title?" Andrewa agreed he had not seen any such description. I believe no one has provided one yet.

After two days closed that behavior discussion, saying, "If people want to continue to engage about B2C's policy editing style, they should do so at their userpage.".

So, I've created this section for that.

I want to start by addressing Andrew's claim that I should have known this particular edit needed discussion needed first, so I've demonstrated an inability to gauge what edits need discussion first, and thus I should always discuss first. I suggest that's applying a standard to me that nobody else is expected to meet. I mean, the history of that page alone is replete with reverts of edits that were made without discussion first - is every one of those edits evidence of someone who should never edit without discussing first?

Also, I'm not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted. After all, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain how saying this is problematic or harmful in anyway. What does the addition of this edit do to Wikipedia other than harmlessly clarify something that is currently ambiguous? How does it not reflect consensus when there are multiple examples (or least there were 3 days ago) of references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in our guidelines that clearly assumed it meant exactly what the words I added said? --B2C 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't take it personally. I support your view in principle but disagree with how you have gone about it and would have taken the same action whoever it was.  I don't know you, anyway!


 * I agree with you that, where a particular title has only one topic, that topic is effectively (if not technically) the primary topic. I wasn't certain that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needed to be amended to explicitly say this, as I thought common sense would make that obvious, but if it's causing confusion, then I would support a line in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify this.  That document is a guideline though, and there is obviously disagreement about whether or not primary topic should, by definition, include such cases.  Therefore, it requires discussion to reach a consensus on this before making such changes.


 * I do not agree with creating a new guideline or essay at WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC, which only adds another layer of complexity to something that is really quite simply. I certainly do not agree with editing guidelines to replace references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (an agreed guideline) with WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC (your own essay), as you had done which is why I reverted it.


 * I'm not sure why you're choosing to discuss this on your talk page rather than at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking anything you said or did personally. It never seemed personal.  I do finally understand your viewpoint.  Now that I do, I'll give it some thought. If I have a flash of insight, I'll share it with you.   But as far as I'm concerned, you and I have no unresolved issues. But here's another idea.  How about adding an ONLYTOPIC section to WP:AT?  After all, the objection to adding this clarification to PT is because it's on WP:D which deals only with disambiguation. So maybe ONLYTOPIC belongs on WP:AT?  I'll propose it at WT:AT.   --B2C 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My first paragraph was in response to your closing comment that you were "not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted."


 * I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this is, but I can't believe this all snowballed from my omitting the word "unique" thinking it was redundant! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit and revert I was referring to, and linked to, was at WP:D, not yours at WP:PLACE. You're not the only one who thinks its redundant.  I think most WP editors who deal with titles probably assume it is.  --B2C 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Andrewa
Since you've atated I want to start by addressing Andrew's claim that I should have known this particular edit needed discussion needed first, so I've demonstrated an inability to gauge what edits need discussion first, and thus I should always discuss first, may I start by saying I think you are misquoting me?

I think you're referring to this diff. This doesn't at all imply that you should have known this particular edit needed discussion, although I can see how it could be taken that way. What concerned me and still concerns me is that you still didn't seem to consider that it needed discussion. That's what I meant when I said In view of your misplaced confidence that this particular edit needed no discussion first....

Several other editors have said that they might well have made the same edit, in the same circumstances, without prior discussion. But that doesn't mean they'd do so now, I hope nobody would, because it has now been demonstrated to need discussion.

I think you do need to be more willing to participate in informal talk page discussion, and most important, to accept the result of consensus reached there. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves has a similar theme. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)k
 * I must be an idiot because I'm completely lost. I'm the one who started a discussion. I'm the one frustrated that everyone seems to be more eager to discuss why I didn't discuss first, why we're discussing here and not there, etc., etc., anything but the content of the edit itself, and you're still accusing me of not being sufficiently willing to participate in informal talk page discussion?  Have you looked at my edit history?  For God sakes!  It's all I do!  --B2C 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're not a complete idiot, and yes you do contribute an enormous amount of informal discussion. But there are circumstances in which you're very resistant to such discussion, and that's a shame. It makes much of your contribution unhelpful.
 * A case in point would be the very helpful distinction you often make between local and general consensus. I think this is a very useful concept and a brilliant turn of phrase, but it appears nowhere in the policy at WP:consesnsus, unless you count the redirect from (which I note was created by a user account which is now blocked indefinitely, I'm not sure why). Rather than using this term extensively with no policy support for it, wouldn't it be better to either incorporate it into the policy, or alternatively use the standard Wikipedia terminology?
 * It is a subtle distinction, and our policies and guidelines are not entirely consistent on it (as with many things). We do of course need to balance instruction creep and WP:BALL against improving policies, but there is a time for improving them, and that time is when they no longer support the arguments we accept by consensus as valid (otherwise, why have the policies). Either your arguments rejecting local consensus when it appears to contradict guidelines are valid (as I believe they are in some cases at least) or they are not. If they are then we need to update the policy.
 * But if not, then you should not appeal to the concept. And it is not perhaps as simple as you make out.
 * So, this phrase should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and incorporated into the policy if consensus is reached there. There's a discussion on this very point at Wikipedia talk:Consensus (probably about to be archived) that reached no conclusion, which is not hopeful. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You accuse me of being resistant to informal discussion, and your example is "the very helpful distinction [I] often make between local and general consensus.", a distinction I often make in informal discussion.  How is this supporting your claim that I resist informal discussion? The link to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is over two years old and has hundreds of links to it.  More importantly, it's just a link to a section of a policy page, WP:CONSENSUS, thus it is policy:


 * Yet you chide me for "using this term extensively with no policy support for it"? What are you asking for, exactly? This?  --B2C 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Was the redirect ever discussed? If not, it's not policy. Its target is, but the inclusion of an undiscussed change into a policy is a simple mistake, not a change of policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quoted text is on a policy page, therefore it is policy. The term or link is simply a short cut reference to that text conceptually equivalent to copy/pasting that text into where-ever it is referenced.  Trying to draw a distinction between referring to policy directly, rather than indirectly through a term or link, makes it difficult for me to believe you're serious.  --B2C 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quoted text simply refers to "consensus". It does not refer to "local consensus". I believe it is unwise to try and draw official distinctions among what you perceive as various kinds of consensus. And I believe Andrewa was asking about the creation of the redirect -- whether or not its creation was based on discussion. A redirect is not "policy"; it's just a navigational aid. Omnedon (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If somebody says WP:CRITERIA is policy, they mean the text to which WP:CRITERIA refers on the policy page is policy, not the redirect itself. Same with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  It doesn't matter what the name of the link is.  It could be .  If it links to a section on a policy page, then it's reasonable to refer to, and to "The XYZ Concept" for that matter, as policy, especially if there are hundreds of uses of this link for this purpose, as is the case for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and "local consensus" (which establishes that it is community consensus to use this redirect and term to refer to the concept described in that policy section much more than the half-dozen or so weighing in on the talk page discussion over there). This is done all the time.  Trying to make an issue out of something so trivial is taking nit-picking to a new level.   --B2C 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not nit-picking. This is simply saying that the use of the term "local consensus" is not agreed, so it should not replace the term "consensus". Omnedon (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny the existence of the two types of consensus? (1) That of the participants in a specific discussion, and (2) that of the entire community Wikipedia contributors?  Why do you object to the use of any term to distinguish one type of consensus from the other?  --B2C 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not any "types" of consensus here. In any case, the point is that you wished to change a policy page to use your term when that was not agreed. In other words, there was no consensus to do so. Omnedon (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny the existence of two levels of consensus? (1) That of the participants in a specific discussion, and (2) that of the entire community Wikipedia contributors?  Why do you object to the use of any term to distinguish one level of consensus from the other? --B2C 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try another tack... was there any particular discussion on which you based this edit? There's a lot of discussion, but such an edit should not have been made without consensus, surely? Where do you think this was achieved? Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we trying to discuss policy on a user talk page? Apteva (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question, we shouldn't be. But neither should we discuss user behaviour on a project talk page, we should raise it first here. I think there's a problem with that edit in terms of user behaviour. The policy implications of this edit should be discussed on the project talk page(s) of course, and may have been and I've missed it. B2C should be able to tell us, and point us in the right direction, so we don't go reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, not every edit requires discussion. BRD applies to policy pages too, as long as the Bold edit is done with the belief that it has consensus support.   Second, this was a rewording and didn't change the substance of what that section said prior to the edit.  --B2C 06:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of arguing from silence, I think this means that there was no prior discussion.
 * BRD is an essay. It does not in any way affect policy.
 * The problem is, what you propose would be a blank cheque for anyone who forms a belief that it has consensus support to then boldly change policy. In terms of your beliefs about community consensus, that would then authorise you to make any change that you unilaterally decide improves the consistency of policy. That is not the intention of Template:policy. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't blame the messenger. The majority of policy edits are made, and have always been made, accordingly.  --B2C 16:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (tp stalker). I agree with B2C here. BRD is fine, even on policy pages. these have many watchers, and if you're too bold, they get reverted quickly, so you start discussing. I've bold edits to policy pages which were never reverted and never discussed explicitly, but which were rather my reading of a broad consensus from other discussions elsewhere. I would never edit war to keep some BRD change in, but one edit is within the realm of reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this PGBOLD. Being bold in editing policy pages is explicitly permitted by, yup, policy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But keep in mind that B2C has been repeatedly warned about his behavior. If any editor should be avoiding the "be bold" principle on policy pages, it's B2C. Omnedon (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but if there's no consensus here that this behaviour is contrary to policy, then it's not a behaviour issue, it's now a policy issue. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this is now about policy rather than behaviour, and as such should go back to a project talk page. We can link here for the exact issue, of course. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a behavior issue. Do you know the history? Omnedon (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I do, but diffs would be good. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As would links to previous relevant discussions of B2C's behavior, if there are any. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although tagged essay, is extremely prominent and respected among essays, and would be well considered as behavioral policy. It applies to all editing, represents a minimum standard for advanced editing, a minimum standard that when carelessly crossed leads to trouble.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of this. A good outcome would be to promote WP:BRD to policy, or at least to a behavioural guideline. Assuming you're right about its current status, there should be no trouble getting (dare I say) consensus on this. But again, that discussion should take place on project talk pages, not user talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'm about ready to archive this whole section accordingly... --B2C 05:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to archiving, the discussion seems to run its course. I'm assuming this subsection will be archived as a section of . Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

another local consensus issue
See Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Most 'do not include' votes cite the policy, which is pretty clear - if the subject requests, do not include. The subject has requested, at least twice now. Most 'include' votes cite other, less-directly-relevant policies, or forward arguments not found in any policy. Trend is to include, but it will be interesting to see how closer deals with this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin close on a topic you have taken a position on
Did you forget that you had expressed your position against the two commas, and therefore are ineligible to do a non-admin close? Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case I think it was OK. There was a broader discussion going on elsewhere, which will determine the result of the discussion B2C closed, so it would have been inappropriate to make any change or reach any conclusion other than "no consensus". BDD had already called for a procedural close. Somebody had to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not as if we are short of people who can close the discussion. For someone as polemic with entrenched positions, it's certainly very debatable whether B2C would have been the best person to close any discussion on page moves. Just my penny's worth. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did? Where?  --B2C 05:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember taking a position on it, and even looked at WT:PLACE before I closed this. Regardless, any problem with my reasoning and decision?  --B2C 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a problem. Please revert yourself and let someone uninvolved have a look.  The close should at least acknowledge that there's a big consensus at the RFC that it needs to be moved, one way or the other.  You pretty much said so yourself at WT:AT when you wrote "If disambiguation is necessary, as is apparently the case here, I suggest parentheses: Rochester metropolitan area (New York) and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). But I also think a strong argument could be made per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS for no dab page, and to use Rochester metropolitan area for the one in New York, and Rochester metropolitan area (Minnesota). --B2C 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)".  Your close at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area did not acknowledge this reality.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection. This RM proposal was specifically about whether to have one or two commas in that title (Rochester, New York metropolitan area → Rochester, New York, metropolitan area).  I had no position or preference on that particular issue, and the statement you quoted above was not related to that question.  If you think my statement somehow demonstrates a preference for either "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" or "Rochester, New York, metropolitan area", please explain which one and why.   I don't disagree that there is a local consensus at that RFC to move that title, but I just don't see consensus basis to move it to this particular proposed title (or any other particular title for that matter).    --B2C 06:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You also specifically rejected my two-comma suggestion with "I don't know of any precedence or reason to use 'common natural sentence form' in article titles. --B2C 00:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)". This seems to have been a specific denial of the natural grammatical form, which is what this RM was about. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * B2C, I always object to you doing non-admin closes of RMs, because you have a strongly-fought position on titling theories and are always chipping away at the WP:TITLE to make policy reflect your way. RMs should be closed by people who are more neutral.  In this case, you closed it without acknowledging the obvious consesnsus at the related RFC that it should be moved, and the issue that remains open is to what.  In light of this, letting someone who could either see the answer, or someone open enough to relist and wait, close it would have been better all around.  Now, we just have to start yet another one.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You object to almost everything I do or say, period. You seem to be incapable of remaining objective when I'm involved.  That's not my problem, it's yours.  In this case, I stand by my close as fair, reasonable and objective.  I had no horse in that race.  It's sour grapes in spades to stretch so far as to object on the grounds of who closed a given discussion, rather than whether the close reasoning was sound, fair, objective and reasonable. As to not acknowledging the consensus at a related RFC - there is no obligation for any closer to mention that. RM proposals are often about issues that are discovered elsewhere; I don't recall any RM closer ever mentioning such related/separate discussions.  There is little if any precedent for what you're demanding (once holding trying to hold me to a standard that nobody else is ever expected to achieve). Consensus needs to develop through discussion for a title that is supported by consensus.  Consensus is simply not there yet, and I think that's plain for anyone to see.     --B2C 20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The objection based on who did the close is valid in this case, since you had commented specifically on the renaming of this article, in another discussion. The fact that you forgot, and didn't acknowledge the rest of the discussion about it, doesn't make it OK.  You really should not be doing RM closing; you always have a dog in the race.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RM closing styles
Hi B2C,

I am just reviewing your close, at Talk:Communion_(Christian). On substance, it seems a fine close, thanks for doing it.

I have some wishes, applying here to you and to many others:
 * (1) I wish that non-admins would use the RMnac template.
 * (2) I wish that "Do not move" closes would specify whether the closer is reading a "consensus to not move", which raises the burden on a later RM nominator, and a "no consensus" discussion. Your second sentence is good, but specifying this in the bold is better.  It makes it easier to review old RM discussions.
 * (3) I wish that closes would record the above in the edit summary, specifically that the edit is a RM Close, and how closed. It greatly helps when reviewing through watch-listing, page histories or user contributions.

Would these be agreeable to you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) When I discovered RMnac I started using it, and I thought there was consensus support for non-admins to use it. But when I tried to say that at WP:RMCI, it was reverted. So, unless consensus changes about using RMnac, I'm not too keen on using it any more.  I think that revert (and other examples) reflects a shift in consensus in the last 6 months about NACs vs. admin closes, moving towards the view that the difference between them is practically insignificant.
 * (2) Unless the close result says "no consensus" it reflects consensus finding. So, Do not move means "consensus is do not move".  That's how I read it, and that's what I mean by it.   If you know of any examples of where a closer used "do not move" in a "no consensus" situation, please let me know.  I don't think I've ever seen that.  I don't think I've ever seen an RM closed with consensus to not move.  But if you think that's what closers should be using, I suggest making a proposal at WT:RM to modify WP:RMCI accordingly.  I note that those instructions are not clear on what phrases to use in what situations - that seems to be an area for improvement. The phrase I have an issue with is, "no consensus to move".  Does that mean "there is no consensus, so don't move"?  Or does it mean "there is consensus to not move"?  I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:RM. Most people seem to think it means "no consensus to move or not move, so that's how I'm interpreting it, but I'm still not using it myself.
 * (3) I agree I should have noted "RM close" in the edit summary (or something to that effect). I'll try to remember next time.  But, again, "do not move" in the edit summary means "consensus is to not move".   --B2C 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (1)  I wasn't aware of those edits and reverts.  Interesting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Relisting of Talk:Journey Through the Decade
B2C, how does an RM with four opposers making policy-based arguments override a nominator's opinion (the third time around!). If you support the move, just say so. It's very difficult to see how a relisting was appropriate there. A rationale should have been provided. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This one really speaks clearly to the question of sources, case-by-case reasons, and the weight given to "policy-based arguments". It speaks to a simmering debate, involving at least me and B2C, on the role of policy, descriptive vs prescriptive, are the many policy/subpolicy policy pages really representative, were they ever meant to be binding, are the active participants at policy/subpolicy pages representative of the community and/or representing project goals?  B2C had just poked at WT:AT, and given that, and the significance of the case as I state, discouraging a close today is a good idea.  Agreed, a more articulate statement saying that this is really a pertinent case and that he had just increased its adverting, would have been preferable to "relist" edit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Anything would be preferably to B2C messing with RMs. If he had left it, it would have been closed and gone soon enough.  It's meritless.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, clearly I disagree about the meritlessness of discussion. At the very least, if you are right, I will learn something.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that anyone can relist for any reason. I think I read that in an AN/I or at WT:RM.   In this case SmokeyJoe is exactly right regarding the reason, but I didn't want to say anything there to avoid influencing anything one way or another.  --B2C 01:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B2C, I have undone my close of this move discussion. Reverting the page to the old version caused one of your comments about my close to disappear. You can restore it if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It got closed again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't format the relist template right and now the requested move has been closed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent bold edit to PRIMARYTOPIC
Prompted by an edit by that introduced some ambiguity to some language at WP:PLACE, on July 22, 2013 at 15:57 I made a bold edit to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify something that I thought was obvious and trivial: that only use of a term is the primary topic of that term. This clarification would also remove the ambiguity from anywhere where PRIMARYTOPIC was referenced in the way sroc did (assuming it applies to the only use case as well). These were the words I added:


 * Whenever a word, name or phrase is used to refer to only one topic on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic for that term.

My edit summary said: "The trivial case of primary topic - when a term refers to only one topic".

Within 7 minutes, at 16:04, the edit was reverted by.

So, per WP:BRD, I started a discussion about this at:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation

At 19:33, on July 22, 2013, 3 1/2 hours after my edit was reverted, and well into the above discussion, started a new section about me allegedly adding my own "untested" views into the guideline.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation

Some of the discussion about the edit spilled into this section, starting with asking for a "headline version of the problem with noting that if there's only one WP topic for a WP title, it's the primary topic for the title?" Andrewa agreed he had not seen any such description. I believe no one has provided one yet.

After two days closed that behavior discussion, saying, "If people want to continue to engage about B2C's policy editing style, they should do so at their userpage.".

So, I've created this section for that.

I want to start by addressing Andrew's claim that I should have known this particular edit needed discussion needed first, so I've demonstrated an inability to gauge what edits need discussion first, and thus I should always discuss first. I suggest that's applying a standard to me that nobody else is expected to meet. I mean, the history of that page alone is replete with reverts of edits that were made without discussion first - is every one of those edits evidence of someone who should never edit without discussing first?

Also, I'm not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted. After all, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain how saying this is problematic or harmful in anyway. What does the addition of this edit do to Wikipedia other than harmlessly clarify something that is currently ambiguous? How does it not reflect consensus when there are multiple examples (or least there were 3 days ago) of references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in our guidelines that clearly assumed it meant exactly what the words I added said? --B2C 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't take it personally. I support your view in principle but disagree with how you have gone about it and would have taken the same action whoever it was.  I don't know you, anyway!


 * I agree with you that, where a particular title has only one topic, that topic is effectively (if not technically) the primary topic. I wasn't certain that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needed to be amended to explicitly say this, as I thought common sense would make that obvious, but if it's causing confusion, then I would support a line in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to clarify this.  That document is a guideline though, and there is obviously disagreement about whether or not primary topic should, by definition, include such cases.  Therefore, it requires discussion to reach a consensus on this before making such changes.


 * I do not agree with creating a new guideline or essay at WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC, which only adds another layer of complexity to something that is really quite simply. I certainly do not agree with editing guidelines to replace references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (an agreed guideline) with WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC (your own essay), as you had done which is why I reverted it.


 * I'm not sure why you're choosing to discuss this on your talk page rather than at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking anything you said or did personally. It never seemed personal.  I do finally understand your viewpoint.  Now that I do, I'll give it some thought. If I have a flash of insight, I'll share it with you.   But as far as I'm concerned, you and I have no unresolved issues. But here's another idea.  How about adding an ONLYTOPIC section to WP:AT?  After all, the objection to adding this clarification to PT is because it's on WP:D which deals only with disambiguation. So maybe ONLYTOPIC belongs on WP:AT?  I'll propose it at WT:AT.   --B2C 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My first paragraph was in response to your closing comment that you were "not convinced that if someone else had made the edit, that it would not have been reverted."


 * I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this is, but I can't believe this all snowballed from my omitting the word "unique" thinking it was redundant! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit and revert I was referring to, and linked to, was at WP:D, not yours at WP:PLACE. You're not the only one who thinks its redundant.  I think most WP editors who deal with titles probably assume it is.  --B2C 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Andrewa
Since you've atated I want to start by addressing Andrew's claim that I should have known this particular edit needed discussion needed first, so I've demonstrated an inability to gauge what edits need discussion first, and thus I should always discuss first, may I start by saying I think you are misquoting me?

I think you're referring to this diff. This doesn't at all imply that you should have known this particular edit needed discussion, although I can see how it could be taken that way. What concerned me and still concerns me is that you still didn't seem to consider that it needed discussion. That's what I meant when I said In view of your misplaced confidence that this particular edit needed no discussion first....

Several other editors have said that they might well have made the same edit, in the same circumstances, without prior discussion. But that doesn't mean they'd do so now, I hope nobody would, because it has now been demonstrated to need discussion.

I think you do need to be more willing to participate in informal talk page discussion, and most important, to accept the result of consensus reached there. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves has a similar theme. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)k
 * I must be an idiot because I'm completely lost. I'm the one who started a discussion. I'm the one frustrated that everyone seems to be more eager to discuss why I didn't discuss first, why we're discussing here and not there, etc., etc., anything but the content of the edit itself, and you're still accusing me of not being sufficiently willing to participate in informal talk page discussion?  Have you looked at my edit history?  For God sakes!  It's all I do!  --B2C 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're not a complete idiot, and yes you do contribute an enormous amount of informal discussion. But there are circumstances in which you're very resistant to such discussion, and that's a shame. It makes much of your contribution unhelpful.
 * A case in point would be the very helpful distinction you often make between local and general consensus. I think this is a very useful concept and a brilliant turn of phrase, but it appears nowhere in the policy at WP:consesnsus, unless you count the redirect from (which I note was created by a user account which is now blocked indefinitely, I'm not sure why). Rather than using this term extensively with no policy support for it, wouldn't it be better to either incorporate it into the policy, or alternatively use the standard Wikipedia terminology?
 * It is a subtle distinction, and our policies and guidelines are not entirely consistent on it (as with many things). We do of course need to balance instruction creep and WP:BALL against improving policies, but there is a time for improving them, and that time is when they no longer support the arguments we accept by consensus as valid (otherwise, why have the policies). Either your arguments rejecting local consensus when it appears to contradict guidelines are valid (as I believe they are in some cases at least) or they are not. If they are then we need to update the policy.
 * But if not, then you should not appeal to the concept. And it is not perhaps as simple as you make out.
 * So, this phrase should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and incorporated into the policy if consensus is reached there. There's a discussion on this very point at Wikipedia talk:Consensus (probably about to be archived) that reached no conclusion, which is not hopeful. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You accuse me of being resistant to informal discussion, and your example is "the very helpful distinction [I] often make between local and general consensus.", a distinction I often make in informal discussion.  How is this supporting your claim that I resist informal discussion? The link to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is over two years old and has hundreds of links to it.  More importantly, it's just a link to a section of a policy page, WP:CONSENSUS, thus it is policy:


 * Yet you chide me for "using this term extensively with no policy support for it"? What are you asking for, exactly? This?  --B2C 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Was the redirect ever discussed? If not, it's not policy. Its target is, but the inclusion of an undiscussed change into a policy is a simple mistake, not a change of policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quoted text is on a policy page, therefore it is policy. The term or link is simply a short cut reference to that text conceptually equivalent to copy/pasting that text into where-ever it is referenced.  Trying to draw a distinction between referring to policy directly, rather than indirectly through a term or link, makes it difficult for me to believe you're serious.  --B2C 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The quoted text simply refers to "consensus". It does not refer to "local consensus". I believe it is unwise to try and draw official distinctions among what you perceive as various kinds of consensus. And I believe Andrewa was asking about the creation of the redirect -- whether or not its creation was based on discussion. A redirect is not "policy"; it's just a navigational aid. Omnedon (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If somebody says WP:CRITERIA is policy, they mean the text to which WP:CRITERIA refers on the policy page is policy, not the redirect itself. Same with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  It doesn't matter what the name of the link is.  It could be .  If it links to a section on a policy page, then it's reasonable to refer to, and to "The XYZ Concept" for that matter, as policy, especially if there are hundreds of uses of this link for this purpose, as is the case for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and "local consensus" (which establishes that it is community consensus to use this redirect and term to refer to the concept described in that policy section much more than the half-dozen or so weighing in on the talk page discussion over there). This is done all the time.  Trying to make an issue out of something so trivial is taking nit-picking to a new level.   --B2C 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not nit-picking. This is simply saying that the use of the term "local consensus" is not agreed, so it should not replace the term "consensus". Omnedon (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny the existence of the two types of consensus? (1) That of the participants in a specific discussion, and (2) that of the entire community Wikipedia contributors?  Why do you object to the use of any term to distinguish one type of consensus from the other?  --B2C 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not any "types" of consensus here. In any case, the point is that you wished to change a policy page to use your term when that was not agreed. In other words, there was no consensus to do so. Omnedon (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you deny the existence of two levels of consensus? (1) That of the participants in a specific discussion, and (2) that of the entire community Wikipedia contributors?  Why do you object to the use of any term to distinguish one level of consensus from the other? --B2C 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try another tack... was there any particular discussion on which you based this edit? There's a lot of discussion, but such an edit should not have been made without consensus, surely? Where do you think this was achieved? Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we trying to discuss policy on a user talk page? Apteva (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question, we shouldn't be. But neither should we discuss user behaviour on a project talk page, we should raise it first here. I think there's a problem with that edit in terms of user behaviour. The policy implications of this edit should be discussed on the project talk page(s) of course, and may have been and I've missed it. B2C should be able to tell us, and point us in the right direction, so we don't go reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, not every edit requires discussion. BRD applies to policy pages too, as long as the Bold edit is done with the belief that it has consensus support.   Second, this was a rewording and didn't change the substance of what that section said prior to the edit.  --B2C 06:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of arguing from silence, I think this means that there was no prior discussion.
 * BRD is an essay. It does not in any way affect policy.
 * The problem is, what you propose would be a blank cheque for anyone who forms a belief that it has consensus support to then boldly change policy. In terms of your beliefs about community consensus, that would then authorise you to make any change that you unilaterally decide improves the consistency of policy. That is not the intention of Template:policy. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't blame the messenger. The majority of policy edits are made, and have always been made, accordingly.  --B2C 16:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (tp stalker). I agree with B2C here. BRD is fine, even on policy pages. these have many watchers, and if you're too bold, they get reverted quickly, so you start discussing. I've bold edits to policy pages which were never reverted and never discussed explicitly, but which were rather my reading of a broad consensus from other discussions elsewhere. I would never edit war to keep some BRD change in, but one edit is within the realm of reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this PGBOLD. Being bold in editing policy pages is explicitly permitted by, yup, policy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But keep in mind that B2C has been repeatedly warned about his behavior. If any editor should be avoiding the "be bold" principle on policy pages, it's B2C. Omnedon (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but if there's no consensus here that this behaviour is contrary to policy, then it's not a behaviour issue, it's now a policy issue. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this is now about policy rather than behaviour, and as such should go back to a project talk page. We can link here for the exact issue, of course. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a behavior issue. Do you know the history? Omnedon (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I do, but diffs would be good. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As would links to previous relevant discussions of B2C's behavior, if there are any. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although tagged essay, is extremely prominent and respected among essays, and would be well considered as behavioral policy. It applies to all editing, represents a minimum standard for advanced editing, a minimum standard that when carelessly crossed leads to trouble.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of this. A good outcome would be to promote WP:BRD to policy, or at least to a behavioural guideline. Assuming you're right about its current status, there should be no trouble getting (dare I say) consensus on this. But again, that discussion should take place on project talk pages, not user talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'm about ready to archive this whole section accordingly... --B2C 05:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to archiving, the discussion seems to run its course. I'm assuming this subsection will be archived as a section of . Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)