User talk:Notfrompedro/2019/May

May 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Firehose, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please show me the discussion which gained consensus for the original move. As far as I can tell Doncram just up and moved it without any discussion based on his own personal belief that " move obscure band article to appropriate title". Why would I be required to gain consensus to undo a unilateral move done without consensus? Notfrompedro (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please answer my questions? Where is the discussion which gained consensus for the original move? Why would I be required to gain consensus to undo a unilateral move done without consensus? Notfrompedro (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you're read WP:Consensus.
 * "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." In this instance, made the edit in October 2018. That edit was not disputed or reverted. That is the consensus.
 * Continuing: "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." That would be -- almost -- your edit made seven months later. You are implicitly suggesting there is a new consensus that the redirect should point to the band. However, I disputed that and reverted the edit. It is not an "edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor". I made this pretty clear, I think, in my edit summary: "Both one- and two-word variants are used (see talk); see also history that this had been moved away from band. If you do want to pursue this, bring it up on talk page."
 * After I reverted your edit, if you still feel that the band, and not the firefighting equipment, is the primary topic for "firehose", you should make your case on the talk page (as I directed in my edit summary). You should not simply re-revert because you disagree. As I said in my second edit, "Take it to talk. Read WP:BRD."
 * Look, if you're right, and the band really is the primary topic for "fire hose", your position will prevail and the redirect will be made to point to the band. I think that's pretty unlikely, but if you are convinced, start the conversation and see if anyone agrees with you. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I disputed it therefore you were wrong to revert it. There was no consensus and there was no discussion.
 * No, you initiated the change with your edit. It was then disputed by me. You dispute the dispute; but that's misreading Wikipedia policy to argue that that establishes consensus. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it established consensus. I am arguing that your claim that there was a retroactive consensus simply because someone unilaterally made a change without discussion is false. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to convince you; got it. It sounds like there's not a whole lot to discuss here. If you still believe what you're saying, start the RM. TJRC (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was mentioned above so this discussion pinged me. I made the move before.  Hey, I do regularly use the formal wp:RM process, towards getting moves done where there is any likely disagreement.  In this case, I guess I thought it was obvious that the worldwide common understanding of what a fire hose is, is that is a hose used by firemen.  So I didn't think it was controversial to move it.  Maybe I should have followed the instructions at wp:RM for a potentially controversial move, and maybe then User:notfrompedro would have seen it and participated in the discussion.  Sorry if I offended you later, by having just moved it.  I do encourage you to open a formal wp:RM about this now.  In general the wp:RM process works really well in Wikipedia, unlike almost any other process, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel that Firehose as a single word denotes the band and two words is the firefighting equipment. The fire hose article itself uses two words to describe the item. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fire hose article itself uses two words and one word' to describe the item: "A fire hose (or firehose) is ..."
 * But, again, if you still disagree, start a discussion on the talk page (or better yet, as Doncram suggests, request the move via WP:RM) and make your case. If the consensus goes with you, it will be moved as you propose. TJRC (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)