User talk:Titodutta/Essays/Requested Move: Ideas and Opinions

Primary talk
Hello Jenks, BDD, In ictu oculi, After participating in many RM discussions, I have seen in many RMs editors giving lame points, and more surprisingly move requests are being executed depending on those lame points. I can give you examples, but, let's avoid it to keep the environment friendly. My first question is- do we have an essay on common mistakes or suggestions on good RM debates? If we have give me the URL, I'll see if I can add some of the points from this essay there. And if we don't have one, we can write an essay and place it somewhere in Wikipedia like WP:Opinions on Requested move

I have made a draft, see User:Titodutta/Essays/Requested Move: Ideas and Opinions. This essay has multiple problems 1) this is written in a draft style and very quickly, any revision has not been done still, so there might be various mistakes 2) Since you are already RM experts, right after reading header or first line of a paragraph you'll get what I am trying to say, that's why I tried to keep things brief and have not given unnecessary longer explanations, and in few paragraphs, you'll see I have just started explaining and added an "expansion needed" tag. Also I have concentrated on article structure only and have not added any image etc to increase visual appeal. Hope it'll be okay for you. 3) most of my points are based on India related articles. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You might find it useful to link to Search engine test. LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC). You might also find it useful to look at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 37 and Recognizability: (1) regarding consistency, most editors don't search Categories (because they don't know how to) before naming or renaming articles, so there are inappropriate article names and category names, example here (browser->layout) and here ; (2) regarding recognizability, (a) as you point out, many people do not know how to use search engines to research the most widely-used and widely-recognized forms of names, or (b) some people deliberately ignore the most widely-used and widely-recognized forms of names in English, insist on versions with diacritics (which the great majority of English speakers cannot read or remember—i.e. difficult or impossible to recognize forms) and use the per majority/bigger army argument. The current Tom Jones RM is related to recognizability vs. the "forcibily educate the ignorant masses" argument, which is also used for diacritics. I think that criteria guidelines as to adequately researching recognizability don't apply just to renaming but also to naming articles, so they also should be in Article titles. LittleBen (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're making an RM version of WP:AADD. That's not a bad idea, and you may want to use that essay as your model—both in terms of structure and some particular arguments. Arguments to avoid in requested moves? WP:SET could be a see also from one section. We should tread carefully, though. Some arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are perfectly acceptable in RMs. WP:OTHERSTUFF can be a very good argument, since like articles should be named alike. And you've accurately described some problems with the search engine test, but in general, it's a much better way to gauge the relative occurrences of different forms of a name. If term A is in the hundred millions and term B is in the ten thousands, it's unlikely that there's an egregious enough error such that term B is actually more common. I could go on—it probably makes sense to discuss individual arguments in separate sections where we can work towards better wording and intent. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in requested moves looks great. We can add a section "Be careful before giving these arguments"! Rome was not built in day. We can start with few basic points and add/modify points later. If the essay does not exist, someone can go ahead and start the essay after creating the basic structure. I'll join in there. I am unsure if we should give specific examples of incorrect/poor arguments, I have a list, but that might be uncomfortable for some editors! So, should we avoid it?--Tito Dutta (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tito, I don't need to contribute but will look at it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrasts with AADD
I don't know if anyone's still watching here, but I wonder if Arguments to avoid in requested moves should start with the premise that WP:AADD applies unless otherwise stated. Many of those principles, such as personal opinions and per majority, apply to RMs in a straightforward manner. Others may need clarifying or may be completely inapplicable—as I mentioned above, WP:OTHERSTUFF can be a good argument in RMs. We'd be reinventing the wheel if we rewrote AADD altogether, but an exploration of how those arguments might play differently in RMs seems valuable. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)