Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 38

Reminder - this page is under arbcom restrictions
Editing this article policy without discussion to obtain consensus may subject you to discretionary sanction. Please see the notice at the top of this page. Joja lozzo  15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "policy" rather than "article". I see nothing at the moment that could warrant such an intervention, unless ArbCom is out to make self-fulfilling prophecies. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the fact has already been addressed above, in the section "Bulls in a china shop..." and discussed. Any particular reason you're bringing it up again, especially since no policy page edits have been made since then and that was less than 24 hours ago? KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you're replying to me. I thought an explicit reminder would be helpful, primarily to newcomers to the discussion. I also disagree with your statement that experienced editors don't need such reminders. Joja  lozzo  19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So far there are no new editors, and no one has reverted a single time, and the notice is at the top of the page, and I trust experienced editors to actually read such notices. I guess I have more respect for the average editor's competence. You may be right, however. I have been told I am too quick to presume others' care and competence, and certainly there are at least a few editors who don't bother to read the notices. I still fail to see why you're warning a second time about something which is not even happening, nor even any indications it might happen. Again, no one has made any sanctionable edits, no one has reverted, and except for some minor incivility the discussion is going well, with people expressing their views and trying to work towards consensus. But I'm not worried about it, I was just asking. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree that things have not progressed that far but undiscussed edits during consensus building is disruptive. I'm hoping we can keep the edits on the talk page until we've reached agreement. Joja  lozzo  19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulls in a china shop, chefs in a crowded kitchen
Um ... why are we seeing undiscussed changes, as though there are six cooks in a small kitchen. Well, there have been multiple spillages and burnings, so please slow down. Kim B, no, that's not good wording. May I remind editors that this is a central policy page specifically marked out for ArbCom discretionary sanctions (notice is at top of talkpage), and subject to rulings about discussing first, editing later. Tony  (talk)  03:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I count three, not six - and Kim's edit isn't even in the same area. Please AGF. I am certain everyone is trying to ensure this policy is as well written as possible, and no one has made more than one edit. There is no need to remind experienced editors of DS when there is very active discussion ongoing, and no edit warring in sight. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to work out what was deficient with the wording. I can find nothing to recommend the hasty and ill-considered edits over the past day or two. Tony   (talk)  04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your struggle seems to arise from a failure to see that the wording is ambiguous: "should" was probably taken by many editors as a recommendation, a perception reinforced by the sensible guidance at WP:RM and WP:MOVE which differ from the wording in this policy. Unfortunately "should" can be read as prescriptive, and give the misleading impression that RM is the only permitted venue. See below. . dave souza, talk 07:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RM is not the venue the talk page is the venue, and although it can be advertised in other places it should (also) be advertised at RM. As I asked before if there is a debate on a page move that is not advertised at RM, what is the mechanism for deciding on the consensus and who makes the move (Given that we frequently see editors complaining about the judgement of a neutral administrator who makes a move at RM)? Or put another way, RM has rules and presidents that have developed over time -- such as moving a page back if moved during a debate so that malignant editors making pre-emptive moves can not then argue that you need a consensus to move it back -- if the move is not advertised at RM then do RM rules apply? -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to second PBS here. RM is a talk page discussion.  It is an established process that ensures title changes are made consistent with title policy and community consensus.  It is supported by a long-standing, well thoughtout set of closing instructions and a more recent community established review process.  No one in this and the discussions above and below has yet to establish any advantage for conducting title changes via other talk page discussions.  Until such time as such advantages (if any) are clearly understood, we should not be changing title policy to encourage any other type of title change discussion in lieu of RM.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, no one is even trying to say that RM isn't the best way. I have no idea how you could still be misunderstanding this. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why other methods can not be used to advertise more widely a proposed move, but it does no harm and has considerable benefits if the RM process is used to process a move request where there has been a difference of opinion in the debate. So why add to this policy page recommendations that alternative methods are used to advertise a proposed move (and by implication exclude the RM process from processing the close)? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not. That's been off the table since day 1 of this Rfc. Please see verbiage 6, and comment on that suggested verbiage, which like the previous 4 suggestions, mention no method other than RM. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excluding the RM process where there has been a difference of opinion in the debate may have been "off the table since Day 1", but Men's rights has just been moved, without using the RM process. Neotarf (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the Men's rights talk page, nor is this Rfc about Men's rights. That discussion has already been had elsewhere. Please don't muddy the waters of this discussion by bringing up closed issues. If you absolutely cannot stop talking about that move, please go back to ANI and bring it up there. That specific incident is not appropriately addressed here on this talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment had nothing to do with the content of the Men's rights article or with the ANI. No one has any problem with having an RFC prior to bringing an article to Requested Moves. Please do not misrepresent my viewpoints.  If someone is saying here that bypassing the RM procedure for controversial moves has been "off the table since day 1" and then bypasses the RM procedure to make a controversial move, that certainly pertains to the policy focus, and should not be concealed from this discussion.   Neotarf (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Of probable interest to the editors of this page
Village_pump_(proposals) KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, cool stuff. Joja  lozzo  02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village_pump_(idea_lab) may also be of interest. This is a possible proposal to reduce the number of Country name-related RMs, when there is a dispute between an unofficial name and an official name which appear to be equally used by reliable sources. Comments and thoughts would be appreciated; if there is enough support, I will list it as an RFC here, and link it on the Village Pump. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for considering uncontroversial title changes
The section under discussion is Considering title changes, but up until Kim's edit the section dealt only with controversial or potentially controversial title changes. This effectively contradicted both WP:RM and WP:MOVE, both of which give sensible guidance on less controversial changes. My proposal is that wording from these guidelines be adapted as introductory paragraphs to the #Considering title changes section, proposed wording follows. dave souza, talk 07:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't contradict MOVE or RM, because it dealt only with controversial moves. As you say, we already have those two pages that provide the guidance: we don't need it repeated here because it's not suited to being policy. It's not suited to be being policy because in my mind it is first, because this page is only going to be used in resolving disputes over pagemoves, which are controversial cases, and not for guidance on uncontroversial moves; second, an uncontroversial move can be performed in any number of ways and proper guidance is necessary on using the correct one - so for example the summary above mentions technical moves but really impels the reader to read that as well because it doesn't give any indication of what these reasons are. In other words, the conscientious mover is already obliged by the summary to read the other information provided. But I have to say that first and foremost this page is going to be cited when someone makes a move like that and they get reverted, or during a move discussion. Clear guidance at this stage is necessary, not a proliferation of options and other things to read. There will always be more guidance, but this should be policy. However, there might be some merit in mentioning the movenotice specifically. (The second part of that paragraph, less so, because we already have guidance here.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, the primary problem was that the paragraph was headed Considering title changes, and if it doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. Policy should be descriptive, and at the least should indicate where editors can get guidance: if it says editors can do something, it doesn't compel them to do it. Also, this page is likely to be used by editors wondering what names are suitable even when there's no dispute. Anyway, more concise wording linking to the guidance would be welcome, as long as it is clear where to get guidance as to whether or not a title is controversial.. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This would appear to require the additional burden of a second talk page discussion before moving a page. In actual practice, there may not be anyone participating in the move discussion who is knowledgeable about the subject matter of the article itself; the decision and any associated rearrangement of disambiguation pages is then based on MoS and other policy considerations. Of course, more discussion is always better than less, and moves go more smoothly when there are several editors who have reached a consensus and can present the reasons for the move succinctly in terms of WP:TITLE when the RM is initiated, but this is not always possible and should not be mandated by policy. Neotarf (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any change to this section other than maybe the section heading. If it needs to include the words potentially controversial or controversial then fine, that will make everyone feel better. The real issue here is that any proposed title change that is likely to be opposed by an editor for any reason (and there are loads of them in our conflicting title policy) is potentially controversial and should go through the WP:RM process. Any attempt to circumvent that process does harm to WP. If WP:Title contradicts WP:RM and WP:MOVE--a process and how-to guideline, then they need changing, not the policy. The fact that one admin resolved an ANI which was essentially a pissing match between two editors, by saying an RFC was OK, does not require us to change policy to encourage that. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about changing policy Mike. The issue is with the word "should" which can be taken to mean different things. Please abstian from your unfortunately inaccurate beliefs about why we're here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * [Placeholder for comment removed by its author, per  WP:REDACTED.] Neotarf (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are actually kidding. Right? If we removed the word should (regardless of how anyone interprets what that means) from the policy that RM is the process to take potentially controversial or controversial title changes and replace it with words that encourage alternative methods, then we are changing the policy. Wouldn't you concede that?  BTW, why can't anyone answer the question:  What advantage does an alternate form of talk page discussion have in title changes over the current RM process?  If we are going to encourage an alternate process, we ought to be able to tell editors why one process is better than another?  BTW, (probably the wrong place to ask) but why is Men's rights still at Men's rights when you closed the RFC as Result of the discussion is to Move (rename); regarding the other items, the result is slightly less clear. There seems to be broad general support for the suggested changes, but there is considerably less discussion and views are not as clear. I suggest you move the article, ...  I suggest the editor you were telling to move the article doesn't have the necessary permission to do so because of an existing redirect and the apparent need for a history merge.  It was your responsibility to move the article and do all the necessary clean-up.  You would have not gotten away with that if this title change had been accomplished thru RM WP:RMCI is clear on that.  So now that this article title change has been discussed via RFC, who is responsible for doing the work? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternative methods exist, policies should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The word "should" can be taken as a strong recommendation, which is reasonable: it shouldn't be hard to say concisely why it's the best procedure, which would be helpful to editors. dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike: You're right, this is the wrong place to discuss Men's rights. The editor asked me to close the Rfc (I never "told" anyone to do anything) is an admin, and can certainly move it herself. Why are you even bringing this up? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Please confine your discussion here to the wording of the policy page. Going off on tangents isn't helping a bit. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [A comment here has been removed by its author.] Neotarf (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: amend section title to "Considering potentially controversial title changes"
As above, since the section doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can concur with changing the section heading. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be more accurate, unless we take Kim's approach and discuss other title changes briefly before discussing contentious and problematic ones. It still leaves the "should" word in place, which is the entire reason I am here. I still like "recommended" as Fuget suggested - that is the verbiage used when advising admins to discuss undoing another admin's block, which is certainly more serious than this. In fact, it is almost always considered wheel warring and has resulted in de-adminning. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is taking it step at a time, if we change the title we can consider having a "for|uncontroversial changes|" header to the section which would point to advice without restating it. Agree about "recommended", indeed "strongly recommended" would be clearer and more accurate than the rather ambiguous "should". In Beeb English, "Should is used to give advice and make recommendations and to talk about obligation, duty and what is expected to happen. Reference is to the present and the future. Should is similar to must but is not as strong as must." . . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a step so much as a different issue; should non controversial title changes be briefly mentioned before instructions on controversial one? If yes, then the Kim Bruning (with verbiage tweaks, etc.) If no, then this suggestion, sure, it will make it more accurate. I'm not saying Kim didn't have a good idea, noticing that the title didn't reflect the content of thta section. I'm just saying this is a different issue from the reason this Rfc was opened. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is really a different issue and is not part of the RfC discussion. It only relates in that the focus on promoting RM procedures for "potentially controversial title changes" leaves editors uninformed about the other procedures for renaming, which we can come round to when this immediate issue is resolved. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What would we do about the last two paragraphs which do not concern controversial changes:
 * "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd (which is the current name of Stalingrad).
 * While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
 * Joja lozzo  21:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These appear to be guidance on how to discuss proposals at RM, in which case why are they in this policy? The guidance would apply to controversial name changes, it may also apply to less controversial name changes where consensus about opposing points of view does not need RM. However, if this section does not discuss such changes as required above, then that would be left unstated. . dave souza, talk 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joja's right; if the title changes to include Controversial then those will have to be reworked. I'm beginning to think Kim's idea was a good one. Add a short blurb about seeking consensus, then add the RM for controversial bits, then leave the end bit which does not discuss RM as is. Leave the title as is. Otherwise, this policy about titles will ONLY have RM explained, no other method of reaching consensus. And we all agree RM is not always necessary. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not guidance on an RM it is guidance on any discussion of the move of article names and for someone new to the concept, the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd helps focus the mind on what an article title is, without needing to go to guidelines for this information.

If we have to tell people that there is a move button at the top of a page then best to do it with a hatnote }}  -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The introduction already deals with methods for getting consensus and renaming an article: "This page explains in detail the considerations on which choices of article title are based. [...] For information on the procedure for renaming an article, see Moving a page, and Requested moves". There's no need to explain here how to use the move button. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's normal to relink points as we don't expect readers to memorise the opening paragraphs when reading a section about considering title changes. The standard for uncontroversial changes is to be bold, it's best to discuss any changes on the talk page. My proposal above covers these points. There's no need to give guidance on discussion of the move of article names for someone new to the concept, but it's helpful for such editors who can't be expected to memorise the whole policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about relinking (in this section) to Moving a page and WP:Consensus. Actually, I tried to do it yesterday, but my edits were reverted by Neotarf. I am not willing to invest time in a discussion about this, although I disagree with Neotarf. The link to WP:RM is already provided. Paolo.dL (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

break - and yet another suggestion
The point of this section is not to mandate RM discussions... the point is to reiterate that consensus is needed, especially when there is a dispute. So I would propose something like: thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * rename the section header to: Disputed titles:
 * change the text to: As noted above, Title changes are made by consensus. To settle disputes and determine consensus, seek uninvolved third party opinions. The more controversial the proposed change, the wider that consensus should be. The preferred way to obtain a wide consensus is to file a move request (see: Requested moves), however a widely advertized RFC is also acceptable.
 * Clearly I would support this, and find it to be the general view of the community. RM's are, as you correctly state, not mandated. However, several editors of this page objected to the mention of any method other than RM for seeking consensus, feeling that it would somehow "undermine" or minimize RM. My first suggested verbiage did include Rfc as an option, however that not being found acceptable, I removed it and every version since has not included any reference to Rfc, merely mentioning needing consensus. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also support this wording; I feel a mention of RFCs is necessary, as there are circumstances when an RFC is a more appropriate venue for discussing article moves, i.e. debates over diacritics. Any proposed moves which would affect a large swath of articles should probably be handled in an RFC, rather than an RM (as those have limited implications outside the 10 maximum articles listed.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be discussing moves that could affect wide swathes of articles whether by RM or RfC. I think that would more appropriately be a policy/style discussion that may or may not be applied to particular articles determined on a case by case consensus. Joja  lozzo  20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my concern that the section is not just about controversial title changes.
 * I do not think that "disputed titles" are the same as "potentially controversial page moves" which better describes what we are focusing on here.
 * No one has explained to my satisfaction when an RfC would be a preferable to an RM (assuming we're not talking about moving wide swathes of pages). Joja  lozzo  20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is a distinction to be made here. RM is a process to propose, advertise, decide (based on policy and consensus) and if necessary execute a title change. Ideally on a specific article, where the merits of the proposal, sources, policy, etc can be evaluated.  RFC on the other isn't suited for that.  RFCs to discuss guideline or policy changes that affect multiple articles (ie the Vietnamese diacritics issue) are fine and that's what unstructured RfCs are suited for.  However, the outcome of that should be a policy, guideline or naming convention change that can then applied on a case by case basis to applicable articles where an uninvolved admin can make and execute the title decision based on consensus and policy.  Adding language to WP:Title that make RfC a viable alternative to RM to decide and execute title changes, especially wholesale changes, is bad business. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Moves can be done BOLDly, after unstructured discussion on the talk page, after structured discussion on the talk page (RM or Rfc). All of those can be acceptable methods. Mike, you keep saying Rfc can never be used, and yet it can. If there is a SNOW closure on an Rfc, that is pretty much the same as if they'd had an informal discussion, only they took the extra step of listing it and soliciting broader input. I don't know which method actually attracts more outside views; but RM simply is not mandated, either by policy nor longstanding practice. I am sympathetic to your view that it is the best approach for disputed moves or problematic moves, but it is not, in fact, the only approach. I've dropped my verbiage that included Rfc due to concerns by you and others; maybe that wasn't the best way forward. Perhaps we can mention all methods in turn, briefly. Frankly, given a snowblall close of an Rfc, I do not agree that Rfc is only worthwhile as a "first step" on the way to RM. In such a case, with 30 days of open discussion, there is usually no point in an additional 14 day listing at RM to satisfy some bureaucratic methodology. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your terminology. A bold move is executed prior to the development of consensus. There is no discussion required. If a discussion has commenced or completed, then it is no longer called a bold move. It is either a consensus move or tenditious editing depending on whether the move is aligned with consensus or not. Joja  lozzo  21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misunderstood me. I don't understand what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying I'm calling a post-consensus discussion move BOLD and I am most emphatically not. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I parsed your list of ways to move a page as a sentence with dependent clauses. Nevermind. :-) Joja  lozzo  02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we are discussing these page moves in the context of "Disputed titles". Why are we including anything other than formal structured development of broad consensus? Joja  lozzo  02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we? The title of the section is still Considering title changes not Considering disputed title changes. I suggest that rather than change the title, we rework the verbiage so it is more inclusive and matches the title better. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

break - when is an RfC equivalent or preferable to RM for potentially controversial moves?
I think this question is central to the discussion. We are trying to guide editors in collaboratively and stably retitling pages. When we suspect a move could/would be disputed, under what additional conditions would we recommend an RfC (or any other option) rather than RM for achieving a lasting, stable result? Joja lozzo  21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We're not trying to change the verbiage to say Rfc is equivalent or preferable. No one has suggested this, so your question is off topic. We also have not suggested an informal talk page discussion is preferable to find consensus. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that we should draw a sharp line between RMs and RFCs... I think it is more accurate to say that a discussion at WP:RM is a specific type of RFC (one specifically focused on the article title). If the primary issue is the title of the article, a discussion at RM will be more productive (drawing editors who know WP:AT and our other naming conventions).  On the other hand, if there are several issues to be discussed (one of which is the title), a widely advertized RFC would probably be more productive than an RM request (as a discussion at RM would likely ignore the issues that have nothing to do with the title). Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you would recommend discussing several issues in an RfC especially if one of them is a potentially controversial page move. I have never seen an RfC that raised multiple issues and produced a satisfactory outcome. The discussion threads become interwoven, additional side issues arise and can barely be detected, let alone controlled, and consensus is nigh impossible. And that's without adding a potentially controversial page move. Joja  lozzo  01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Killer: As I understand it, some here want the policy to explicitly allow an RfC for a potentially controversial page move. Why would we want that if an RfC is inferior? Joja  lozzo  02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask those who want that, sorry. I have no idea why you'd think I have insight into their reasoning. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request
With a sigh, I see that another request for an ArbCom judgement has been lodged involving this page—now involving User:KillerChihuahua and the circumstances of a recent RM of Men's rights. Tony  (talk)  04:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Declined as mathematically impossible, at 11:11, 22 August 2012. For info, dave souza, talk 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * for those who might be wondering: Mathematically impossible is the closing the clerks are using these days to close a request where enough Arbs have declined that it does not matter if every Arb left accepts, it will still be declined. So they close it without waiting on comments from the other Arbs. They used to just close those as "declined". KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

extra article title experienced eyes would be appreciated at an RM
There's a current RM at Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement that has previously been the subject of substantial controversy. Given the controversy, I think the discussion would benefit from having more participants who have experience interpreting WP:Article Titles. Added input from any of the regulars here (or anyone for that matter :)) would be appreciated. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note, this article is under special broadly construed terms of article probation. For details, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation  This is not a simple 3RR or 1RR or even Discuss before Bold, but has unusual subjective provisions.  Also note, now that the recent ANI ad ArbCom actions have been closed, that for the purposes of imposing sanctions, "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions."


 * Before anyone offers their assistance to that project, they need to read that notification word for word. And then give long thought to exactly what it is they want to accomplish on Wikipedia.


 * Neotarf (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms of the sanctions imposed by the community at ANI are worth noting, but they are not unusual. They are almost identical to other community sanctions, and in fact were barely modified after they were cut and paste from another set of community sanctions.  They're hardly used as a blunt club - only two editors have ever been sanctioned under them.  No good faith editor ever has to worry about being subject to them.  Both of those editors were sanctioned for things that, if brought to AN/I, would have resulted in sanction against them anyway.


 * More people who have experience applying WP:Article Titles would still be appreciated (and are needed) at the RM I linked earlier. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No they are not "almost identical". To anything.  Read them in their entirety, consider the paradox of "bad faith" accusations, and consider what uses could be made of them by someone with a hidden agenda. Neotarf (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They're pretty standard community imposed sanctions. They were explicitly modeled after the Sarah Palin sanctions.  They're also quite similar to the Barack Obama sanctions.  Palin's and Obama's sanctions really do look pretty much identical to the men's rights sanctions to me. There are a few minor differences, but nothing big.  And again, they've only been invoked twice, and both times the editors had done things that would've gotten them blocks if the matter had happened at any page and been taken to AN/I.


 * Meanwhile: more WP:AT experienced eyes would still be appreciated at this RM :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the RFC?
I have not joined in till now because I have had other things on my mind at ArbCom, with business that is highly relevant to the RFC KillerChihuahua started, above. (The entire final text of my request at ArbCom can be read in its final permanent version, just before before the request was closed as declined – in a way that I find most satisfying, by the way.)

Some concerns, and some observations (numbered for easy reference):


 * 1. Where is the RFC? What are its boundaries on the page? What has been agreed upon and what remains to be resolved? There are new sections started here and there, but it is not clear whether they belong to the RFC or represent new discussions. I am especially intrigued by this from 18 August: "No longer being considered, see below." What is no longer being considered? Why? Who decided that? Where do we look "below", to find what is now being considered? The development of this page has had a chaotic history, and RFCs here have generally been a mess. The proposal this time (as I understand it, anyway) has deep implications for the whole WP:RM mechanism; but it was advertised only on the RFC page for policy and guidelines. I have added it now to Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming, since MOS specialists will be interested (as I certainly am), and WP:TITLE is the central resource for naming articles on Wikipedia.


 * 2. I say this RFC is momentous because it does affect the substance of policy. I strongly disagree that "should" in the contested wording is materially different from "must". Let me put this question to all participants here:
 * "Before the assertion was made repeatedly and forcefully at the start of the RFC, did you think 'should' meant referral of controversial moves to WP:RM was optional? That it was discretionary?"
 * Well, as someone adept enough in my native language, I read it as expressing a clear obligation: in firm and unambiguous terms. Same for countless other uses of "should" in Wikipedia policy, ArbCom decisions, you name it. See examples below.


 * 3. An external opinion has been cited to support "should" not entailing obligation, though "must" does. Well, I do not agree with that external view. I am surprised that anyone should think it determines how "should" and "must" are used on Wikipedia – or indeed, anywhere other than in rigidly regimented contexts. But if "should" is ambiguous in WP:TITLE, then surely the first, unopinionated question ought to be this: What does "should" mean, in that policy provision? It is a requirement that RFCs be put fairly and neutrally; but this one was not. It dogmatically presupposed that the meanings of "must" and "should" are to be artificially forced apart, so that on Wikipedia they cannot both imply obligation.


 * 4. How do "should" and "must" overlap? In the natural language used by practically everyone on Wikipedia, they are not at all distinct in the precise way KillerChihuahua has insisted. In normal, everyday use they share what is technically called deontic force (or obligatory force: they tell someone what to do, perhaps with differing tone or emphasis). Each has some other distinct meanings and syntactic features, apart from that, in the realms of the epistemic and the purely alethic. (Examples of epistemic difference: "He should be here in five minutes" might be taken in various senses to do with our state of knowledge; and these senses differ from the related senses of "He must be here in five minutes". More strictly, this matter is doxastic rather than epistemic: but never mind.) Heh. I just wanted to show that the matter is not at all elementary, as KillerChihuahua appears to assume. It is highly technical.


 * 5. If we do distinguish between "should" and "must" the way KillerChihuahua likes, a great deal of policy is thrown into doubt. Why not "must", in the following provisions of policy?
 * "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."
 * "Editors should respond to proposals in a way that helps identify and build consensus."
 * "Editors should sign their responses."
 * "... because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits ..."
 * Those are from WP:POLICY, but hundreds more can be found. Does KillerChihuahua seriously expect us to read them as entailing the following: Reason and common sense are optional, in applying policy? It is fine for editors to respond to proposals in a way that will not work toward consensus, or not to sign their responses? Editors need not take care when editing those sensitive policies and guidelines? I don't think so.
 * Or when ArbCom delivers decisions like the following (from their index of motions):
 * "The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate."
 * "Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email."
 * Does anyone think ArbCom was allowing for discretion and latitude, in carefully using "should" and avoiding "must"? I don't! I don't think that ArbCom wants to undermine an express prohibition, later in the very same sentence.


 * 6. KillerChihuahua started this RFC when she herself was accused of improprieties as an admin – for failing to adhere to this very provision in policy. By me. Did she declare that, at the outset? I don't see any such declaration of interest or involvement.

After wading through what I can of it, I'd say this is just the latest in a series of flawed attempts to tamper with Wikipedia's core titling policy for some "political" purpose. I suggest that the RFC be wound up now. There are too many manifest irregularities and confusions: to say nothing of cajoling, gratuitous and uncivil accusations of wikilawyering (the irony!), and sheer obfuscation. If the destination is stable consensus, this shoddy process puts us instead on a track to nowhere.

☺

N oetica Tea? 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes a lot of sense (although I prefer shorter posts, Noetica). Tony   (talk)  10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the posts were shorter, how would we know the account hasn't been compromised? :) Neotarf (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Me too, if possible.
 * N oetica Tea? 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the English language is tricky... there are all sorts of subtle nuances between "must" and "should" which can lead to confusion. So let's restate our intent without using either word. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Should and Must are not the same thing in my dialect of English, and Noetica, I am surprised that they are in yours. For you what does "ought" mean and how does it compare to "should"?

AFAICT OED online does not include the verb "should" (must be a glitch/omission in the online version), but it does include Must and Ought.
 * Must: A use of ‘must’ (must) to express a command, obligation, or necessity; (hence) an obligation, a duty; a compulsion
 * Ought: Expressing duty or obligation of any kind; originally used of moral obligation, but also in various more general senses, expressing what is proper, correct, advisable, befitting, or expected.

For me "should" is better for most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than "must" because should is an advisory word and not a compulsory one (as the advise will be followed voluntarily by most reasonable editors due to the advise being reasonable and part of a whole raft of guidance. However if there are mitigating circumstances that are reasonable, then it is reasonable that they do not follow the advise). But for some things there is an imperative eg for WP:BLP it is correct that the first sentence says "". There is no reasonable excuse for not taking care, and a legal imperative to do so. Likewise we make it imperative in WP:V "" not because it is a legal imperative but because it is seen by most editors that this is not a negotiable position which "should" substituted for "must" would give to the phrase.

It may be that we decide that the word "should" ought to be replaced with "must" in the phrase "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should must be advertised..." but for me that would change a phrase from advising me of an obligation I have into an imperative I must follow.

For myself, Noetica, I do see a difference between the use of "should" and "must" in the Arbcom example you give. For example "Both parties are expressly prohibited from ... and should must instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email." In the should version, they may report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email (but they do not have to), in the must version, they have to report it. The latter would bring a new problem that "perceived violation" is not subject to a "reasonable test so that would have to be added to the wording when an imperative is used.

BTW I think that reading commentaries on international treaties such as the commentary on the Geneva Conventions helps illuminate such issues on specific word usage such as "must" and "should" -- see for example the section International humanitarian law in the article in the article Military use of children and the difference between "take all necessary measures" and "take all feasible measures". -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * PBS, you write: "Should and Must are not the same thing in my dialect of English, and Noetica, I am surprised that they are in yours." Be surprised no longer; just read more carefully. They are certainly different, but not in the elementary way KillerChihuahua insists. Now, where is your link for this "OED online", for us to examine? Personally, I consult a large collection of sources: the actual OED (the authority on the English of our time, and the last millennium); a comprehensive suite of other dictionaries; a collection of all major grammars of English published in recent decades; the multi-volume Cambridge History of the English Language; all major and many minor style guides in current use (with older editions of some also, to track the development of current recommendations); a collection of relevant linguistic monographs; works on the philosophy of language, and philosophical semantics; and more. Add to that the contents of major university libraries, if I need to go beyond what I have to hand. Now, sure: there is room for interpretation of some subtleties in the use of "some" and "must" in wikispace. Make an RFC to deal with that if you like – at the village pump, or somewhere suitably general. But let no one prejudge anything so complex here, as this excuse for a fair RFC would do. ♫♪! N oetica Tea? 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then Noetica, you should have no difficulty in quoting here the relevant wording from the OED for discussion. You should also be able to suggest alternative wording that is less ambiguous. We do not expect our reader to consult the multi-volume Cambridge History of the English Language when trying to work out the meaning of policies, for example. . dave souza, talk 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave, if there is ever a properly neutral RFC on the question of interpreting English modal auxiliaries in wikispeak, you may ask me to advise as an expert. This is not such an occasion. A crass linguistic assumption was foisted on editors here, for questionable purposes. (See what I have laid out above, in numbered points.) I simply note that I have the capacity and the resources to assist, if anyone wants a useful, calm, structured, and unbiased discussion sometime. One that does not start from a concealed agenda or ill-informed presuppositions. ♥
 * N oetica Tea? 21:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noetica, what i want is for you to be helpful rather than obstructive, and for you to assume good faith. It is clear that different editors have different understandings of the policy, and improved clarity should be our goal. . dave souza, talk 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF? O, you mean as in your insulting response to Mike Cline (see above): "Ho hum. You seem to be edit warring to make Wikipedia self-contradictory and unworkable." Sorry Dave: I always start with an assumption of good faith; but that is sometimes sorely tested, and then we do have to wonder. Review what has been unfairly alleged against me on this page (by name or otherwise). Review your own posts elsewhere, too. Helpful? I have been helpful: making a clear diagnosis of a disastrously compromised and unwieldy discussion. If you have a behavioural issue with me, take it to my talkpage. We could compare notes. But frankly, I have spent far more time on the far-reaching consequences of KillerChihuahua's actions than I can afford. There may be more to do; but I will have to rule a line under some of this nonsense. ♥
 * N oetica Tea? 22:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed some of the proposals were couched in passive voice as well. I didn't find any recommendations in MoS about passive, but surely best editing practices should apply here. Neotarf (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought best practice was to use the passive voice when the actor is unimportant or obvious (and therefore conveys no useful information). What are you suggesting? --Boson (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * O, let's not go into the vexed issue of passive voice here. Just note this: when policy and guideline provisions are presented as imperatives, life is easier from the start. Consider this, as opposed to the current passive wording: "Do not move a page without consensus if the move might be controversial. List it at WP:RM instead."
 * N oetica Tea? 23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As requested here are the links: OED must n. and adj. ought v. (see II) and should n.. Not sure how useful the links are as they require a subscription to access them. -- PBS (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those links are indeed useless, PBS. One is asked for login details. Worse than useless, even once you get access (as I do by another route). You have not understood that "should" as a verb is treated in copious detail as a form of "shall", at its entry. You have linked to the entry for "should" as a noun, which is a red herring for our purposes. And "must" as a noun or an adjective? Nah. Sorry! N oetica Tea? 00:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want vexatious, try parsing this one, if you dare:
 * "Broad consensus is essential for any page move, and it is strongly recommended that any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should use the Wikipedia:Requested moves process for discussion on the article talk page which will get the attention of regular contributors who are familiar with the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves."
 * Ignoring runons for the moment, if passive is for subjects that are either unknown or unimportant, what is the "it" of the "it is strongly recommended"? Who recommends? Where? This is a policy description; the location is important. Is it in an essay somewhere?  A guideline? No, it is supposedly contained in this same cowardly sentence. If it is truly policy, then let it make a direct and unmistakable declaration: "Use the Requested Moves process for any potentially controversial proposal to change a title. Of course, if you were following the example (but not the advice) of Strunk and White, you would write "The RM process should be used by anyone proposing a potentially controversial title change." Neotarf (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC) just kidding, just kidding, should I revert myself?


 * For God's sake... are we really going to spend time arguing about the subtle nuances in meaning between "should" and "must"? This is easy to resolve... don't use either word... for example:
 * If changing a title is likely to be controversial, do not change it without consensus. Discuss the proposed change on the article talk page. If necessary, seek the opinion of editors who are uninvolved in the dispute (the preferred method of doing so is to post the proposal at Requested moves, but other methods of consensus determination are acceptable).  Once a consensus has emerged, accept it (endlessly debating controversial titles is both disruptive and unproductive. Remember, there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.)
 * The POLICY point is "Don't change the title without consensus"... the bit about RM is advice on how to achieve that consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A very good point, perhaps worth putting that proposal as a new subsection under the RfC main heading. My feeling is that Noetica should spend more time improving articles, and must stop accusing others of nefarious motives. The arbcom decision was instructive, there seems to be broad consensus that RfC was acceptable in the instance then being discussed, and while controversial moves should generally go through RM, the principle that editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best". reflects the community's practice with regards to article titles better than any requirement to advertise a proposed move on this or that page. The wording of this policy should be less ambiguous and should show these points more clearly. It may also be worth noting that Move review was not in place when the RfC concerned was started, perhaps changes to that may be needed to extend the coverage of Wikipedia:Move review. . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Two quick comments: Blueboar, to the best of my recollection, I have not quoted Noetica, so advising me to stop is somewhat mis-aimed. Noetica: You are incorrect; I did not edit this page while the Rfc was ongoing. I made an edit, and when it was reverted, began this Rfc. I have not edited the policy page since. I hope this clears up any misconceptions. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua, please try to locate your comments so that everyone can see what you are commenting on, and also indent appropriately. Responses:
 * The instance I can most easily cite: You misquoted me as saying "I hope I don't have to take this to ANI" (look for that at Talk:Men's rights [movement]). What's more, you misrepresented what I did say as a "threat". But I did not issue any threat at all. Do not continue this disagreement here. It is off-topic.
 * On the other point, I accept your correction: Blueboar edited the contested wording while it was the topic of an RFC; you simply edited that wording without consultation one hour after the closure of a thread at ANI where you failed to address points about that wording, and which showed (no matter what else it showed) that you were involved. As must be pointed out yet again apparently, this policy page is under special scrutiny through ArbCom discretionary sanctions, just because it has been beset by such disorderly process. So I apologise for my loose wording, which mixed up what Blueboar had done and what you had done. I'm about to amend that, with annotation.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Noetica... Just for the record, I fully admit that I made an edit during the course of the RFC... it was a bold attempt to resolve the issue, an idea presented after some initial positive feed back ... however, my edit was reverted and (per WP:BRD) I have not edited the policy page since. If you think I erred in doing that... well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
 * @KC... All I can say is that it seemed to me like both of you were making too many personal comments, and I was trying to stop that. If you feel my comment was misdirected, so be it.
 * Now, can we get back to discussing the policy and not each other?
 * Noetica, you say just above that the policy is under ArbCom scrutiny and sanctions ... I was not aware of that... could you point me to the relevant page (so I know what the sanctions are)? Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, the discretionary sanctions are advertised at the top of this page. They have been repeatedly alluded to in the course of this sprawling "discussion". See for example Tony's reminder, above (stamped 03:54, 17 August 2012): "May I remind editors that this is a central policy page specifically marked out for ArbCom discretionary sanctions (notice is at top of talkpage), and subject to rulings about discussing first, editing later." Discretionary sanctions are explained at Discretionary sanctions, linked from the notice at the top. The other link there: "See this remedy." See under the heading "Remedies" at that last linked page:
 * "1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes."
 * I remind you that you were named as a party in that ArbCom case; and you were notified of that.
 * Some have thought that further reminders are not necessary; but they obviously are.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh... this is the first time I have ever heard of that arbcom case... and I honestly did not know that I had been named as a party to it. Perhaps I never received notice, or perhaps I received notice and simply ignored it ... but I do know that I did not participate in it (which is rare for me.  I usually at least leave a comment if I am named in an arbcom case).  As for the discretionary sanctions notice at the top of this page... my bad... To tell the truth, I tend to gloss over the boxes at the top of talk pages.  Now that you point it out to me, I see it all laid out, plain as day. Before now?... I don't know, perhaps I thought it was a project banner or something, but what ever the reason, I missed it.  In any case, I should have seen it, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar:
 * My notification of your being named as a party, at your talkpage: diff.
 * For further clear proof that you had heard of that ArbCom case, see its Workshop page. Search for your name there. You contributed! See also what I wrote at that page: "Blueboar is a sensitive analyst of titling and MOS issues, and I have always read carefully whatever he brings to discussion."
 * Let's all pay each other due respect – and read carefully, hmmm? ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 03:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * N oetica Tea? 03:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Insights
Use of this should be recommended in the guidance with respect to COMMONNAME. It allows you to compare words and track new content, so you can see what is most used at the moment, within the last 12 months etc. It also allows you to filter by country (although, unfortunately, only one country at a time), so it is possible to focus on English-speaking countries and cut out the noise from other sources around the world. Lastly, you can filter it to return only news sources if you want to.

This seems to me to be much better suited to our purposes than Google News and Google Books, which is what is recommended at present. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Link to Google Insights for the benefit of others: http://www.google.com/insights/search/ A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this can be Google-bombed? In any case, as a test, I took a look at the ever popular Sega Genesis versus Sega MegaDrive  naming dispute.  It seems like it gives a slight edge to the former. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can get a comparison in one graph by separating with a comma: . The feature I really like, though, is filtering by country (this graph shows why this article title is such a problem: ). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly better than Google News, which includes a lot of non-English sources. (With News, you can type in Search_term location:United States or whatever, but how many people know that?) Kauffner (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand it correctly, Google Insights is based on what people are searching for, not on content sources (reliable or otherwise), so it is only of indirect value - to get a perspective on what the man in the street (rather than reliable sources) is using (at least as a search term, not necessarily in normal writing).--Boson (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The secret of good SEO is matching the article title, and the words near the top of the article, with what a majority of searchers are searching for. If it's not found then it's not read. So surely Google Insights is very relevant to choosing an optimal title.
 * This is one of the strongest arguments for not using diacritics in article titles: Google Insights shows that, even in Brazil, about half of the searches use Pele and half Pelé. Of course the proportion of searches using Pele rather than Pelé is very much higher in English-speaking countries. Forcing Wikipedia to use redirects for popular articles is a waste of resources. Opinions like "diacritics (where available) must be used in English Wikipedia Article Titles seem about as stupid to me as "Chinese or Japanese kanji must be used in English Wikipedia Article Titles".
 * The Google Keyword Tool allows you to find the most searched-for words in certain websites (reliable sources that you choose).
 * Google Search allows you to see search keywords highlighted in the content by clicking on "cache" in the search-engine results page—you can even do a site search (prefix domain to search with "site:") to check usage in a reliable source of your choosing.
 * I have previously tried repeatedly to summarize how to research the most recognizable and consistent article title, and to link WP:AT to Search engine test, but have been repeatedly reverted. LittleBen (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not in the business of SEO. --Boson (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia articles are not found by searching in search engines, and not read, then they become irrelevant—and the people who created the articles were largely wasting their time. Are you saying that Wikipedia in the business of being irrelevant? LittleBen (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting notion. If Wikipedia is in the business of being irrelevant, then we're doing it wrong. We're the #1 information resource on the planet. I don't think you've thought that argument through, LittleBenW. KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't know enough about Wikipedia or SEO to understand my point. Have you heard about WikiProject Outlines, or Wikipedia Portals like Portal:Japan? Have you compared the number of pageviews that Outline of Japan gets, compared with Portal:Japan and Japan? It's as if two of these three articles didn't even exist, as if most of the well-intentioned work that went into creating then and making them so good was wasted, because so few people visit them. Do you understand why there's such a huge disparity between them in terms of pageviews? (Pageview statistics are on the History tab, in case you don't know). Do you know why a short article like Responsive Web Design can be more popular than WP:MOS? LittleBen (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pray do tell us why you think Responsive Web Design is more more popular than WP:MOS. --Boson (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That question can be taken two ways. If as LittleBenW describes, you click WP:MOS, click "view history", and click "Page view statistics", you get 34,022. For Responsive Web Design, it's 37,140. That's why the statistic is true; if you are asking why that happens, it's presumably because WP:MOS puts people to sleep, and they don't come back (maybe WP:SMOS will help). Art LaPella (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are a number of interesting questions: like why one should compare the statistics for a page on a particular aspect of web design with the high level page of the Wikipedia Manual of Style; why one should compare accesses for an article page addressed at the general public with a project page addressed only at Wikipedia editors, why one should compare accesses for the last 30 days, rather than the last 90 days, etc. Should one be surprised that an internal project page gets so many accesses at all? Was the web design article dramatically optimized about 60 days ago, enabling it to overtake WP:MOS]? Did a large number of Wikipedia editors go on holiday in the middle of June? Do many Wikipedia editors go directly to the subpages (which were, presumably, not counted)? Should [[WP:MOS use sex and violence in its examples in order to attract new people, other than people intending to edit Wikipedia? Is the MoS so well written that people need to access it only once to get the single piece of information they need, while the other page is so badly written that people keep coming back in the hope of finally understanding it? Did the Wikipedia Manual of Style (or Responsive Web Design) recently appear on a bestseller list? And so on. But since LittleBenW raised the question, I was interested in his theories. --Boson (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SEO is partly about relevance-to-user-needs, usefulness, and ease of use. RWD is a narrow specialist topic—the article itself is quite brief, and has only existed since late January—whereas MoS is supposed to apply to the whole of Wikipedia, and has been around a long time (so should have an unfair advantage). So surely, as Art LaPella points out, this suggests that a long, rambling, boring, and poorly-organized article, that makes it extremely difficult to find what one is looking for, is likely to be considered less useful and relevant than an extremely useful, well-written, and up-to-date (but quite short and specialist) article that quickly provides the information that people are looking for in an easy-to-understand form. People will bookmark such articles, return to them again, and recommend them to other people. (As the writer of most of the RWD article, I am a bit biased). I am sure that Art LaPella's WP:SMOS will be a huge improvement over WP:MOS.
 * SEO is also partly about popular keywords (people search for Japan rather than Portal:Japan or Outline of Japan), and so few people are finding the latter two articles. This situation can be improved by linking to related articles (as I have just done).
 * Wikipedia's Basic Search is part of the problem. People who use a popular keyword like Web design are (by default, in Wikipedia's search) bumped to the article of the same name rather than being shown a Search Engine Results Page (SERP) with snippets from a selection of articles to choose from, like on Google. This is why Web design gets a lot of traffic even though it is not rated very highly. Another reason why it would be more intelligent for Wikipedia to present a SERP by default is that Wikipedia could "advertise" tutorials like "Learn how to create an article on Wikipedia", "Improve your Internet research skills", "Help patrol Wikipedia for vandals" or whatever, alongside the search results. It's more user friendly to offer users enough information to make informed choices, and invite them to become more involved. The basic Wikipedia search doesn't search categories, or tell a user that there's a category that matches the phrase searched for, even if there isn't an article title that matches, either.
 * So, for the above reasons, I think it's extremely important for Wikipedia contributors to know how to do Internet research (to get their facts right—Wikipedia's trustworthiness is at stake) and to know how to ensure that article names and category names are consistent. I have tried to modify WP:AT to spell this out, and link to tutorials, but was repeatedly reverted. I don't have a lot of time to spend trying to change the minds of people who will probably never understand, and I don't have Art LaPella's patience. ;-)  LittleBen (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear we are wandering somewhat off the topic, but before I leave this discussion, a few points:
 * Some of your theories may be correct, but I do not see any evidence that they are to be preferred over any number of competing theories. If you see your theories confirmed, that may be due to your bias.
 * If you use the Wikipedia search function, you do get a "SERP". If you use the Vector skin, I suppose, you may be misled. If I want to do a search though, I usually prefer to use Google. If I need something specific to Wikipedia, I usually use something like the MoS-Search (i.e. with a prefix), or the advaced search.
 * What you think of the MoS may depend on how you use it. I find it perfectly adequate, though it would help if people would not make undiscussed controversial changes to the content. But then, as an experienced copy-editor, I am usually looking for specific details, such as the house style for formatting the titles of articles in foreign newspapers or when to use a spaced en rule.
 * There is no doubt room for improvement in the field of educating users regarding the facilities that Wikipedia offers, such as categories and how to navigate them, how to set search option defaults etc. but I think we are definitely getting off the topic now.
 * Sometimes, people may disagree with you for reasons other than their lack of your unique understanding of the problem. --Boson (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine any informed and reputable source having "competing theories" that conflict with Google's SEO advice. That SEO is "partly about relevance-to-user-needs, usefulness, and ease of use" and "partly about using popular search keywords in article titles and near the top of articles" is well known—you can read books like "The Art of SEO" (mentioned here) or Google's free "Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide" PDF booklet. "Ease of use" might mean organizing material in a logical hierarchy: a collapsible outline, ideally with an overall index, might be a better way of organizing Wikipedia guidelines. At present, there seems to be no way to create a combined index to WP:MoS, WP:AT, and WP:BOLP, for example. Most users probably can't work out how to bring up a WP Advanced Search box, much less how to search the separate WP namespace for guidelines.
 * Another SEO-related concept: Jakob Nielsen coined the phrase above the fold. He discovered that the majority of web users take only about 15 sec.—looking at only what is visible on screen (without scrolling) [this is what he means by "above the fold"]—to decide whether a site or page is relevant to what they are searching for, or not. You can easily measure this (time to bounce) using Google Analytics or the like. That's why several short and simple focused pages on different topics can be much more effective for SEO than a single humongous page that tries to cram in every topic under the sun, and include everything but the kitchen sink. LittleBen (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Sometimes, people may disagree with you for reasons other than their lack of your unique understanding of the problem". Yes, there seem to be a lot of "Guardians of the MoS" who personally have no idea how to improve it, or how to better organize it and make it more accessible to the majority of Wikipedia users, but who will fight to the death to prevent it from being changed—and who will discuss (at great length) issues that the great majority cannot even see, like "hyphen vs. en-dash". Another example is diacritics. Even though proposals to use diacritics widely have repeatedly failed, there is a small group of users who are systematically and virtually universally adding gratuitous diacritics to article titles—without bothering to check if the name with diacritics is correct, or widely used in reputable English sources—and systematically bullying out or blocking editors who favor the "diacritics neutral" Wikipedia guidelines. LittleBen (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re. If Wikipedia articles are not found by searching in search engines, and not read, then they become irrelevant—and the people who created the articles were largely wasting their time: you know that people can get to articles via links, right? &mdash; A. di M.  12:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For everyone's information: Google Search matches synonyms/alternative spellings/etc. to each other, so by itself it's nearly useless in determining which of two words/phrases is more common if they have the same meaning. Using the intext: operator makes sure that Google will only match the exact word you're searching for and not synonyms thereof (though it won't match inflected forms such as plurals, either). Anyway, hit counts are estimates which can be way off when above several thousands. I'm not familiar with Google Insight so I don't know if it also matches synonyms, but AFAIK it's possible that it does. &mdash; A. di M.  11:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have read or understood the paragraph above that starts with "Maybe you don't know enough about Wikipedia or SEO to understand my point. Have you heard about WikiProject Outlines, or Wikipedia Portals like Portal:Japan? Have you compared the number of pageviews that Outline of Japan gets, compared with Portal:Japan and Japan? It's as if two of these three articles didn't even exist, as if most of the well-intentioned work that went into creating then and making them so good was wasted, because so few people visit them". If you Google for "Japan" then you won't find "Portal:Japan" or "Outline of Japan" in the first few pages of search results—this is why they get so few pageviews compared with the "Japan" article.
 * I think that what you are trying to say is that you think that "article titles written in foreign languages are not a problem, because redirects can be used"—despite clear Wikipedia guidelines that say to "use English"—and by "foreign languages in article titles" you specifically mean foreign words and names with diacritics in article titles. Of course, to take this argument to its logical conclusion, Chinese, Japanese, Korean could be used in article titles, with redirects from plain English forms, but that is obviously ridiculous. The Extended Latin alphabet is used for foreign languages, and is not widely taught in schools in English-speaking countries. English Wikipedia article titles should as far as possible be words that English-speaking people can read, write, and remember—so foreign languages in article titles should be avoided. Wikipedia can offer people the choice to learn or not to learn foreign languages (including foreign words that are NOT commonly written with diacritics in English sources) by using the foreign-language and basic Latin romanized forms together in the article lede and body, but there is surely no rational reason why foreign languages absolutely have to be used in article titles. Google Insights allows you to compare actual search usage on the web of between two and five terms. This example shows that, even in Vietnam, the version without diacritics is far more frequently searched for. If most accesses to popular pages on Wikipedia were routed via redirects, this would be a huge and continuing cost for WMF. LittleBen (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why people don't use diacritics when searching is that (with Google at least) they don't matter. If I search for pele five of the top ten results do use Pelé with an acute accent. In particular, the top result is the Wikipedia article Pelé itself, and not the redirect Pele. So why would I bother typing an é (or a capital P, for that matter) in the search box? In Google's search box I use all kinds of typing shortcuts which I would never use ‘in public’, let alone in formal prose such as an encyclopedia, because I know Google will take me to the right place anyway, and I guess lots of other people do the same. I mean, should we move "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" to "set the controls" because more people search for the latter?
 * And even if Google did show the redirect Pele when searching for pele, it's not your job to decide whether “this would be a huge and continuing cost for WMF”. &mdash; A. di M.  10:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pelé is short, simple, and well known—with or without the accent—I don't think that's an example of a foreign word than English speakers can't read, write, pronounce or remember. (However WMF should be aware of the ongoing cost of using a redirect from Pele to Pelé rather than using Pele in the article title, since it's a popular article and obviously Pele is far more often used in search. Bête noire is surely another such example. I was talking about words and names with diacritics that are not used widely in English sources, and that the average English Wikipedia user could not be expected to read, write, pronounce or remember. LittleBen (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, just because you type pele into Google Search doesn't mean you get to the redirect Pele. Try that: go to http://www.google.com/, type pele, hit Enter, and look at the URL of the top result. (And as I already mentioned somewhere, ease of reading, writing, pronouncing or remembering doesn't always correlate with the presence of diacritics: in Dún Laoghaire the word with which non-Irish speakers are more likely to have trouble with is the one which doesn't include any diacritic.) &mdash; A. di M.  20:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AT says quite clearly that (quote) "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. A good Wikipedia article title has the following characteristics: Recognizability ... and Naturalness : Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with ... Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. The Common names section of WP:AT says "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.
 * The guidelines are quite clear, I think. Are you saying that you prefer to ignore them? LittleBen (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that what people type in the search box doesn't always equal what people type elsewhere. &mdash; A. di M.  11:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added comment on Pelé example above. LittleBen (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what you are trying to say is that you think that "article titles written in foreign languages are not a problem, because redirects can be used"—despite clear Wikipedia guidelines that say to "use English" –I'm not saying that. I'm saying that statistics about Google search queries aren't a good way of determining which spelling(s) is/are used in formal written English (the kind that's supposed to be used in encyclopaedias), as the former are biased towards ease of typing and the latter aren't. (Your own example about Vietnam is an example of that –though in Vietnamese rather than English: apparently the Vietnamese don't type diacritics into Google but they do type them elsewhere.) Even googling for spelling1 OR spelling2, selecting only English in Search Settings > Languages, and counting how many sources use spelling1 and how many use spelling2 among the top 20 or so would make more sense. &mdash; A. di M.  10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this has gone to ANI. I hope that some Admin has the courage to at least put a temporary pause to the morale-sapping intimidation, nastiness, and edit-warring over diacritics in article titles, it has been going on for too many years. LittleBen (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for considering uncontroversial title changes
['''NOTE: Since it is indeterminate whether this section and a certain other section form part of an active RFC, I have speedily reverted the archiving of both. Please leave them both in place until the RFC is closed according to normal procedures.''' ♥ N oetica Tea? 08:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)]

The section under discussion is Considering title changes, but up until Kim's edit the section dealt only with controversial or potentially controversial title changes. This effectively contradicted both WP:RM and WP:MOVE, both of which give sensible guidance on less controversial changes. My proposal is that wording from these guidelines be adapted as introductory paragraphs to the #Considering title changes section, proposed wording follows. dave souza, talk 07:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't contradict MOVE or RM, because it dealt only with controversial moves. As you say, we already have those two pages that provide the guidance: we don't need it repeated here because it's not suited to being policy. It's not suited to be being policy because in my mind it is first, because this page is only going to be used in resolving disputes over pagemoves, which are controversial cases, and not for guidance on uncontroversial moves; second, an uncontroversial move can be performed in any number of ways and proper guidance is necessary on using the correct one - so for example the summary above mentions technical moves but really impels the reader to read that as well because it doesn't give any indication of what these reasons are. In other words, the conscientious mover is already obliged by the summary to read the other information provided. But I have to say that first and foremost this page is going to be cited when someone makes a move like that and they get reverted, or during a move discussion. Clear guidance at this stage is necessary, not a proliferation of options and other things to read. There will always be more guidance, but this should be policy. However, there might be some merit in mentioning the movenotice specifically. (The second part of that paragraph, less so, because we already have guidance here.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, the primary problem was that the paragraph was headed Considering title changes, and if it doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. Policy should be descriptive, and at the least should indicate where editors can get guidance: if it says editors can do something, it doesn't compel them to do it. Also, this page is likely to be used by editors wondering what names are suitable even when there's no dispute. Anyway, more concise wording linking to the guidance would be welcome, as long as it is clear where to get guidance as to whether or not a title is controversial.. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This would appear to require the additional burden of a second talk page discussion before moving a page. In actual practice, there may not be anyone participating in the move discussion who is knowledgeable about the subject matter of the article itself; the decision and any associated rearrangement of disambiguation pages is then based on MoS and other policy considerations. Of course, more discussion is always better than less, and moves go more smoothly when there are several editors who have reached a consensus and can present the reasons for the move succinctly in terms of WP:TITLE when the RM is initiated, but this is not always possible and should not be mandated by policy. Neotarf (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any change to this section other than maybe the section heading. If it needs to include the words potentially controversial or controversial then fine, that will make everyone feel better. The real issue here is that any proposed title change that is likely to be opposed by an editor for any reason (and there are loads of them in our conflicting title policy) is potentially controversial and should go through the WP:RM process. Any attempt to circumvent that process does harm to WP. If WP:Title contradicts WP:RM and WP:MOVE--a process and how-to guideline, then they need changing, not the policy. The fact that one admin resolved an ANI which was essentially a pissing match between two editors, by saying an RFC was OK, does not require us to change policy to encourage that. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about changing policy Mike. The issue is with the word "should" which can be taken to mean different things. Please abstian from your unfortunately inaccurate beliefs about why we're here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * [Placeholder for comment removed by its author, per  WP:REDACTED.] Neotarf (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are actually kidding. Right? If we removed the word should (regardless of how anyone interprets what that means) from the policy that RM is the process to take potentially controversial or controversial title changes and replace it with words that encourage alternative methods, then we are changing the policy. Wouldn't you concede that?  BTW, why can't anyone answer the question:  What advantage does an alternate form of talk page discussion have in title changes over the current RM process?  If we are going to encourage an alternate process, we ought to be able to tell editors why one process is better than another?  BTW, (probably the wrong place to ask) but why is Men's rights still at Men's rights when you closed the RFC as Result of the discussion is to Move (rename); regarding the other items, the result is slightly less clear. There seems to be broad general support for the suggested changes, but there is considerably less discussion and views are not as clear. I suggest you move the article, ...  I suggest the editor you were telling to move the article doesn't have the necessary permission to do so because of an existing redirect and the apparent need for a history merge.  It was your responsibility to move the article and do all the necessary clean-up.  You would have not gotten away with that if this title change had been accomplished thru RM WP:RMCI is clear on that.  So now that this article title change has been discussed via RFC, who is responsible for doing the work? --Mike Cline (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternative methods exist, policies should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The word "should" can be taken as a strong recommendation, which is reasonable: it shouldn't be hard to say concisely why it's the best procedure, which would be helpful to editors. dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike: You're right, this is the wrong place to discuss Men's rights. The editor asked me to close the Rfc (I never "told" anyone to do anything) is an admin, and can certainly move it herself. Why are you even bringing this up? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Please confine your discussion here to the wording of the policy page. Going off on tangents isn't helping a bit. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [A comment here has been removed by its author.] Neotarf (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: amend section title to "Considering potentially controversial title changes"
As above, since the section doesn't deal with uncontroversial changes it should be headed Considering potentially controversial title changes. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can concur with changing the section heading. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be more accurate, unless we take Kim's approach and discuss other title changes briefly before discussing contentious and problematic ones. It still leaves the "should" word in place, which is the entire reason I am here. I still like "recommended" as Fuget suggested - that is the verbiage used when advising admins to discuss undoing another admin's block, which is certainly more serious than this. In fact, it is almost always considered wheel warring and has resulted in de-adminning. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is taking it step at a time, if we change the title we can consider having a "for|uncontroversial changes|" header to the section which would point to advice without restating it. Agree about "recommended", indeed "strongly recommended" would be clearer and more accurate than the rather ambiguous "should". In Beeb English, "Should is used to give advice and make recommendations and to talk about obligation, duty and what is expected to happen. Reference is to the present and the future. Should is similar to must but is not as strong as must." . . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a step so much as a different issue; should non controversial title changes be briefly mentioned before instructions on controversial one? If yes, then the Kim Bruning (with verbiage tweaks, etc.) If no, then this suggestion, sure, it will make it more accurate. I'm not saying Kim didn't have a good idea, noticing that the title didn't reflect the content of thta section. I'm just saying this is a different issue from the reason this Rfc was opened. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is really a different issue and is not part of the RfC discussion. It only relates in that the focus on promoting RM procedures for "potentially controversial title changes" leaves editors uninformed about the other procedures for renaming, which we can come round to when this immediate issue is resolved. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What would we do about the last two paragraphs which do not concern controversial changes:
 * "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd (which is the current name of Stalingrad).
 * While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
 * Joja lozzo  21:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These appear to be guidance on how to discuss proposals at RM, in which case why are they in this policy? The guidance would apply to controversial name changes, it may also apply to less controversial name changes where consensus about opposing points of view does not need RM. However, if this section does not discuss such changes as required above, then that would be left unstated. . dave souza, talk 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joja's right; if the title changes to include Controversial then those will have to be reworked. I'm beginning to think Kim's idea was a good one. Add a short blurb about seeking consensus, then add the RM for controversial bits, then leave the end bit which does not discuss RM as is. Leave the title as is. Otherwise, this policy about titles will ONLY have RM explained, no other method of reaching consensus. And we all agree RM is not always necessary. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not guidance on an RM it is guidance on any discussion of the move of article names and for someone new to the concept, the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd helps focus the mind on what an article title is, without needing to go to guidelines for this information.

If we have to tell people that there is a move button at the top of a page then best to do it with a hatnote }}  -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The introduction already deals with methods for getting consensus and renaming an article: "This page explains in detail the considerations on which choices of article title are based. [...] For information on the procedure for renaming an article, see Moving a page, and Requested moves". There's no need to explain here how to use the move button. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's normal to relink points as we don't expect readers to memorise the opening paragraphs when reading a section about considering title changes. The standard for uncontroversial changes is to be bold, it's best to discuss any changes on the talk page. My proposal above covers these points. There's no need to give guidance on discussion of the move of article names for someone new to the concept, but it's helpful for such editors who can't be expected to memorise the whole policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about relinking (in this section) to Moving a page and WP:Consensus. Actually, I tried to do it yesterday, but my edits were reverted by Neotarf. I am not willing to invest time in a discussion about this, although I disagree with Neotarf. The link to WP:RM is already provided. Paolo.dL (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

break - and yet another suggestion
The point of this section is not to mandate RM discussions... the point is to reiterate that consensus is needed, especially when there is a dispute. So I would propose something like: thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * rename the section header to: Disputed titles:
 * change the text to: As noted above, Title changes are made by consensus. To settle disputes and determine consensus, seek uninvolved third party opinions. The more controversial the proposed change, the wider that consensus should be. The preferred way to obtain a wide consensus is to file a move request (see: Requested moves), however a widely advertized RFC is also acceptable.
 * Clearly I would support this, and find it to be the general view of the community. RM's are, as you correctly state, not mandated. However, several editors of this page objected to the mention of any method other than RM for seeking consensus, feeling that it would somehow "undermine" or minimize RM. My first suggested verbiage did include Rfc as an option, however that not being found acceptable, I removed it and every version since has not included any reference to Rfc, merely mentioning needing consensus. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also support this wording; I feel a mention of RFCs is necessary, as there are circumstances when an RFC is a more appropriate venue for discussing article moves, i.e. debates over diacritics. Any proposed moves which would affect a large swath of articles should probably be handled in an RFC, rather than an RM (as those have limited implications outside the 10 maximum articles listed.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be discussing moves that could affect wide swathes of articles whether by RM or RfC. I think that would more appropriately be a policy/style discussion that may or may not be applied to particular articles determined on a case by case consensus. Joja  lozzo  20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my concern that the section is not just about controversial title changes.
 * I do not think that "disputed titles" are the same as "potentially controversial page moves" which better describes what we are focusing on here.
 * No one has explained to my satisfaction when an RfC would be a preferable to an RM (assuming we're not talking about moving wide swathes of pages). Joja  lozzo  20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is a distinction to be made here. RM is a process to propose, advertise, decide (based on policy and consensus) and if necessary execute a title change. Ideally on a specific article, where the merits of the proposal, sources, policy, etc can be evaluated.  RFC on the other isn't suited for that.  RFCs to discuss guideline or policy changes that affect multiple articles (ie the Vietnamese diacritics issue) are fine and that's what unstructured RfCs are suited for.  However, the outcome of that should be a policy, guideline or naming convention change that can then applied on a case by case basis to applicable articles where an uninvolved admin can make and execute the title decision based on consensus and policy.  Adding language to WP:Title that make RfC a viable alternative to RM to decide and execute title changes, especially wholesale changes, is bad business. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Moves can be done BOLDly, after unstructured discussion on the talk page, after structured discussion on the talk page (RM or Rfc). All of those can be acceptable methods. Mike, you keep saying Rfc can never be used, and yet it can. If there is a SNOW closure on an Rfc, that is pretty much the same as if they'd had an informal discussion, only they took the extra step of listing it and soliciting broader input. I don't know which method actually attracts more outside views; but RM simply is not mandated, either by policy nor longstanding practice. I am sympathetic to your view that it is the best approach for disputed moves or problematic moves, but it is not, in fact, the only approach. I've dropped my verbiage that included Rfc due to concerns by you and others; maybe that wasn't the best way forward. Perhaps we can mention all methods in turn, briefly. Frankly, given a snowblall close of an Rfc, I do not agree that Rfc is only worthwhile as a "first step" on the way to RM. In such a case, with 30 days of open discussion, there is usually no point in an additional 14 day listing at RM to satisfy some bureaucratic methodology. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your terminology. A bold move is executed prior to the development of consensus. There is no discussion required. If a discussion has commenced or completed, then it is no longer called a bold move. It is either a consensus move or tenditious editing depending on whether the move is aligned with consensus or not. Joja  lozzo  21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misunderstood me. I don't understand what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying I'm calling a post-consensus discussion move BOLD and I am most emphatically not. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. I parsed your list of ways to move a page as a sentence with dependent clauses. Nevermind. :-) Joja  lozzo  02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we are discussing these page moves in the context of "Disputed titles". Why are we including anything other than formal structured development of broad consensus? Joja  lozzo  02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we? The title of the section is still Considering title changes not Considering disputed title changes. I suggest that rather than change the title, we rework the verbiage so it is more inclusive and matches the title better. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

break - when is an RfC equivalent or preferable to RM for potentially controversial moves?
I think this question is central to the discussion. We are trying to guide editors in collaboratively and stably retitling pages. When we suspect a move could/would be disputed, under what additional conditions would we recommend an RfC (or any other option) rather than RM for achieving a lasting, stable result? Joja lozzo  21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We're not trying to change the verbiage to say Rfc is equivalent or preferable. No one has suggested this, so your question is off topic. We also have not suggested an informal talk page discussion is preferable to find consensus. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that we should draw a sharp line between RMs and RFCs... I think it is more accurate to say that a discussion at WP:RM is a specific type of RFC (one specifically focused on the article title). If the primary issue is the title of the article, a discussion at RM will be more productive (drawing editors who know WP:AT and our other naming conventions).  On the other hand, if there are several issues to be discussed (one of which is the title), a widely advertized RFC would probably be more productive than an RM request (as a discussion at RM would likely ignore the issues that have nothing to do with the title). Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you would recommend discussing several issues in an RfC especially if one of them is a potentially controversial page move. I have never seen an RfC that raised multiple issues and produced a satisfactory outcome. The discussion threads become interwoven, additional side issues arise and can barely be detected, let alone controlled, and consensus is nigh impossible. And that's without adding a potentially controversial page move. Joja  lozzo  01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Killer: As I understand it, some here want the policy to explicitly allow an RfC for a potentially controversial page move. Why would we want that if an RfC is inferior? Joja  lozzo  02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask those who want that, sorry. I have no idea why you'd think I have insight into their reasoning. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request
['''NOTE: Since it is indeterminate whether this section and a certain other section form part of an active RFC, I have speedily reverted the archiving of both. Please leave them both in place until the RFC is closed according to normal procedures.''' ♥ N oetica Tea? 08:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)]

With a sigh, I see that another request for an ArbCom judgement has been lodged involving this page—now involving User:KillerChihuahua and the circumstances of a recent RM of Men's rights. Tony  (talk)  04:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Declined as mathematically impossible, at 11:11, 22 August 2012. For info, dave souza, talk 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * for those who might be wondering: Mathematically impossible is the closing the clerks are using these days to close a request where enough Arbs have declined that it does not matter if every Arb left accepts, it will still be declined. So they close it without waiting on comments from the other Arbs. They used to just close those as "declined". KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To see this RFC ended

 * I for one would like to see this RFC ended and all the language in WP:Title, WP:RM and WP:RMCI that been messed with since it started (~14 Aug) restored to their pre-RFC versions. There is absolutely no evidence that the pre-RfC language in this policy and related guidelines has caused widespread confusion or is unsupported by the larger, general WP community.  Efforts to change the policies has not been sufficiently structured to ensure wide community support and the real motivations for change are unclear. Lets return to status quo pre-RfC --Mike Cline (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Mike Cline. The word count for this whole mess now stands at 17,412. Demands have been made, arbitrary deadlines imposed, and editors have voluntarily worked through the night, with no thanks from those making the demands. The original proposal was stricken ages ago.  The original problem is solved, now that there is an proper RM ongoing.  Proper title is now being considered with regard to scholarly sources, and not by those with a POV ax to grind who leave no edit summaries.  But still a few editors still continue to snipe and make accusations at those who have carried all the water. Yes, shut it down.  What is the procedure to do that? Neotarf (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have seen no arbitrary deadlines imposed, and I note as a side issue, accusing anyone of being a POV warrior because of their edit summary usage is less than helpful. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I find your categorization of "less than helpful" less than helpful. Why don't you less-than-helpful THIS?
 * I've already reverted once, it's someone else's turn. Neotarf (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Killer Chihuahua wants to revisit this over and over, or how this serves the Project, but since she has asked in an edit summary about the deadlines, I have taken the time to go back and search for the requested information.
 * "ANI"


 * "Waiting on you. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [on Noetica's talk page]"


 * "I am wondering if it would be best if you would you consider taking this to ANI. Noetica seemingly won't, I am concerned it might be viewed as inappropriate for me to do so, ...KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [on Slp1's talk page]"


 * "If you disagree, please take this to ANI within the next 24 hours or I will begin to implement the close. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [on Men's rights talk page]"


 * "Wait no longer: my action at WP:ANI."
 * "NoeticaTea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [on Noetica's talk page]"
 * "NoeticaTea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [on Noetica's talk page]"


 * Neotarf (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you felt it necessary to paste all that, but it has nothing to do with this Rfc, no deadlines at all have been imposed here by anyone. If you have complaints about Kevin's request to Noetica, I suggest you discuss it with him. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So "take this to ANI within the next 24 hours" because you didn't want to do it yourself, is not a deadline. Whatever. Neotarf (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a deadline which has anything at all to do with this Rfc, no. And it was given specifically to one editor, about a related but distinctly different matter. That deadline has no bearing on when this Rfc ends. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said it did. What I said was, "Demands have been made, arbitrary deadlines imposed, and editors have voluntarily worked through the night, with no thanks from those making the demands."  And it was for your convenience.  So did you thank Noetica for helping you out of a jam?  Don't forget, he was also the one who helped you with capitalization in titling considerations after your private RFC decided to name the article "Men's Rights instead of Men's rights. You should be pasting WikiLove kittens all over his talk page.  Just sayin' Neotarf (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your post makes no sense to me, but I'm absolutely certain you're on the wrong page for whatever it is you're trying to say. This is not the talk page for Men's rights movement. This is the talk page for WP:AT. And I have no idea what you're going off on about "your" rfc and "your" convenience. That was not my rfc on Men's rights; it was not my deadline, and there was no help from Noetica regarding the page move. If you're not here to help with this Rfc, please don't post on this page. You are off topic here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish an answer to a question posted here, do not ask the question here. If you do not wish someone to defend themselves from uncivil and unsupported accusations here, then do not make accusations.  And the users here HAVE gone out of their way to answer your original question, which you have now withdrawn, and to offer assistance on other points which you and the editors of the men's rights page have not thought of on your own.  Whether you choose to recognize the efforts people have gone to on your behalf or not is up to you, but the same people stand ready to help you (and of course, the Project) again. You have only to ask.  Neotarf (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not just the initial page where there have been problems with RfCs and page moves and the procedure to follow there is an ongoing move at Talk:Burma. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given the ambiguous AT policy, it's unsurprising that it's not the first page where RfCs have been involved in page moves. From your link, it seems that the RM at Talk:Burma preceded the Request for comments, apparently to advertise the RM more widely, so that is a case of the potentially controversial move request being made at RM as recommended. As Talk:Burma indicates, the title has been the subject of numerous mediation cases and Request for Comment discussions, see also Talk:Burma/Myanmar. It's unclear how refusing to contemplate changes to clarify AT policy will do anything to reduce this problem. . . dave souza, talk 19:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Its more complicated that, you need to read the time-line in the Talk:Burma#Procedural comments section. -- PBS (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Re to Neotarf: That's a content dispute. I don't edit Men's rights movement. In fact, as one of the admins enforcing article probation there, I am the last person you should ask. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a drive-by IP with no edit summary and nothing on the talk page. That's why I asked for more eyes.  But I get templated, and they don't.  Whatever.  Neotarf (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that was a drive by IP. You'll note the editor who reverted you has also been informed of the article probation. May I suggest that an Rfc on verbiage on Article title policy is not the best place to discuss your unhappiness with who gets an informational template about an article under probation. There are other venues better suited to that, this is off topic here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already informed you on my talk page that I have removed the men's rights pages from my watchlist. That should satisfy everyone. Neotarf (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I could have sworn Killer Chihuahua just said she informed the editor who reverted me of the article probation, but I don't seem to see it here.  Neotarf (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Darnit, you're right, my mistake. Thanks - I was thinking of another editor. For future reference, the best place to check is Talk:Men's_rights/Article_probation, because that way you don't have to dig through a talk page history. Going to notify him now - you could have brought this to my attention on my talk page, or notified him yourself, btw. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not likely, given the Byzantine wording of the notification. Neotarf (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a copy/paste. It is a template. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Before anyone offers their assistance to that project, they need to read that notification word for word. And then give long thought to exactly what it is they want to accomplish on Wikipedia. Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this RfC should continue to seek consensus on constructive improvements to clarify the wording. . . dave souza, talk 19:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose closing, this Rfc has only been running a few days. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support closing the RFC, if indeed it still exists as a coherent entity. No one has cleared up the uncertainty about its boundaries on the page, or registered what has been agreed and what has not, or anything else useful. The RFC was irregular and POV from the start (see my account of this, in my recent posts above). Yes, it must be pointed out once again: this page is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions exactly because of such disorderly process over the last ten months. This is not a political playground; it's a core policy page. Its support for WP:RM is not to be undermined through sharp rhetoric and shifty facsimiles of genuine, impartial RFCs. ☺ N oetica Tea? 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And please read WP:RFC, there are no strict requirements for the structure of a RfC. Please allow the discussion to continue, now that we are making some headway. @Noetica, you are already told at ANI that there was not requirement for a page move to be made via RM, and your petition to arbcom is also failing to gain traction. Please don't try to enforce bureaucratic processes where there aren't any. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you were aware, but the ArbCom request has been declined. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes yes! And fascinating reading it makes, too. It's great to see a detailed history, and people's responses and non-responses all assembled in one place. N oetica Tea? 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Enric, not being a bureaucracy is compatible with not being a riot or a cage-fight. This "discussion" meets few of the established principles for RFCs, at a talkpage under special scrutiny for its historically poor performance. Go tell ArbCom that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As for that ANI action, spare me! A mere unpalatable step that I had to take, in seeking exposure of issues arising from KillerChihuahua's actions, and remedies. An entirely predictable outcome; it was closed before notified parties even had a chance to post there. Anyone interested in the full history should sit down with a cup and a pot of tea, and read through all of the ArbCom request. And then, don't discuss it here. Stay on topic. N oetica Tea? 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Enric, for sake of my sanity, what is/are the question(s) this RFC is supposed to answer? and what are the proposals. Since the RFC started on 16 Aug, we've had a bunch of no-consensus changes to WP:Title and WP:RMCI, most I think have been reverted.  Those editors who are pushing their agenda are itching to change this policy page.  What is the change they want? Whatever it is, it is clear there is opposition, but how can anyone determine what and what is not on the table.  It would be extremely useful if the question on the table is clear.  There eight additional sections after the RfC section (are they inside or outside the RfC?) --Mike Cline (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, I would say that if there is agenda pushing here, it is with those are those preventing attempts to clarify confusing a policy statement. The issue concerns the sentence:  "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made."  The dispute is over how this should be interpreted.
 * Based on the comments at recent ANI and Arbitration discussions (not, however, an arbcom decision), there appears to be a fairly wide consensus that title disputes are not required to go through the RM process (that an RFC or some other form of consensus determination is also acceptable). However, there is a minority here on this page who think the current language should be understood as meaning that the RM process is required, and that other forms of consensus determination are not acceptable.  As someone who was uninvolved in any of the disputes that went before this RFC was filed... The one thing that is really clear to me at this point is that the current language is causing confusion (which means it needs to be clarified in some way). As with most policy debates, the hard part is getting people to agree on how it should be clarified (what it should be changed to). That will take more time and a lot of further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I am glad that you revised your post, and that an edit conflict prevented my posting the reply I had prepared. Even now, I must disagree with you. How can you say that only a minority considers WP:RM obligatory for controversial moves, according to the current wording? Look through the mess above, and count again. (Not easy in all that jumble; I'll grant you that.) Now, if the current language is genuinely causing confusion (for which there was no scintilla of evidence over the last three years), then of course it has to be looked at dispassionately and fixed. But not through, or in response to, a shoddy and prejudicial RFC, brought on ad hoc grounds according to an agenda quite alien to maintaining optimal protocols for page moves. You can't expect a drum-head tribunal at ANI to have any competence in these subtle matters, when even on this page we have seen an admin struggling over the difference between a noun and a verb in the disputed wording. Nor can the obiter dicta at ArbCom carry much weight for the general matters considered here. Most of the editors who made submissions there (to which arbitrators responded) are not experts on titling protocols but experts on gender issues – with a strong "gender agenda" for the article Men's rights. Most, however, did not declare their involvement. The only ArbCom message delivered to me (as the initiator of the request) was this at my talkpage, which usefully cleared the way for a review of KillerChihuahua's move at Move review. Hardly a ringing endorsement of controversial moves that bypass WP:RM, regardless of arbitrators' varying opinions of the particular circumstances in that request for a case. This talkpage maintains title policy and procedures; let it do so with decorum, in the best interests of Wikipedia and its readers. N oetica Tea? 03:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we are back at the same impasse as before. If policy is going to recommend more than one mechanism for changing disputed titles, what mechanisms are to be recommended, and what is the advantage of choosing one forum over another? Neotarf (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Blueboar's interpretation of the language and that there is a subtle but significant difference between should and must. It is the recommended forum, but use of RM has never been obligatory. older ≠ wiser 11:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Blueboar's interpretation of the language here is the issue. I for one don't think that other methods for decidiing and executing moves is excluded by the current language but equally so I don't think we should go out of our way to encourage other methods.  I don't think there is the level of confusion that some here think exist. No evidence has ever been presented that widespread confusion exists among our ~138,000 editors.  I think the confusion is manufactured because some editors feel the burning need to change this policy. If those who were confused at the begining of this are still confused, then we have bigger problems.  The word should appears 42 times in this article.  How many of those instances are causing confusion because editors are viewing the construct as obligatory when it isn't? --Mike Cline (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [After edit conflict:] Do you indeed, ≠ (alias User:Bkonrad)? Why would that be? Why do you interpret "should" in that irregular way, and why has the peculiar interpretation you now endorse never been raised in the past three years? The current wording in policy, yet again: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made ." Note that the second underlined wording comes within the scope of "should"; do you therefore also think that reaching consensus first is optional? And elsewhere on this same page of policy: "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article." That's subject to an editor's discretion too, right? And for consistency in interpretation, you say these provisions are just recommendations also, I presume: "... over-precision should be avoided"; "This policy section should be read in conjunction with the disambiguation guideline"; "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources"; "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic"; "These should be seen as goals, not as rules"; "[This page] is supplemented by other more specific guidelines [...], which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view." All mere recommendations, right? You say we can set those core policies aside at our discretion when interpreting guidelines? Uh-huh. N oetica Tea? 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you interpret "should" in that irregular way -- There's nothing irregular at all about how I interpret the use of should. The term is ambiguous, and I think that ambiguity is pretty well understood. You are splitting hairs in your parsing of that sentence. Why you think that I might interpret it in the way you misleadingly suggest is beyond comprehension. I see no reason to read should as governing both portions of the conjunction. And to your points, yes, the use of should implies recommended behavior not a mandatory obligation. If the policy means no exceptions, no editorial discretion allowed, then should is not the correct term to use. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You cherry-pick what to answer, and then you get things wrong anyway. Of course "should" has various meanings and various uses. Who denies it? Read what I have written about this, above. But that variability does not entail ambiguity for every use, and every context. The raw Google search you link to is incompetent and scattershot; precision and focus are obviously essential in any reasonable analysis of "should". I am not splitting hairs in my parsing of that sentence; show me any plausible parsing by which the second part does not come within the scope of "should". The form "reached" can be interpreted no other way. You appear to be arguing ad hoc, to support a completely unconnected view about how you would like moves to be managed on Wikipedia. There's a great deal of such "committed" argument in this discussion. Get clear about this: one is a technical linguistic matter, the other is a Wikipedia policy matter. Same for your response concerning "recommended behavior" versus "mandatory obligation". Some detachment, please.
 * N oetica Tea? 21:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, my abject obeisance in light of your self-proclaimed verbal skills (although to be honest I find the gratuitous verbosity an impediment to making heads or tails out of what you actually mean). You seem to have latched on to some peculiarly narrow interpretation of should and as is your wont, have proceeded to engage in tedious argumentation. I've already said as clearly as I could that the use of RM has never been obligatory. And if policy pages intend to mean no exceptions, and no editorial discretion allowed, then should is not the correct term to use. Do you have anything constructive to say? older ≠ wiser 21:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say on the points that I made? You spoke plainly about parsing; I answered plainly about parsing. I issued a challenge: parse the sentence otherwise, since you claim that you can. If you cannot do that, do not resort to mockery, or to criticising my language and the way I present my argument. That is uncivil, and disgraceful behaviour from an admin at a page subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Admit that you have been shown to be in error, when it is clear that you have been.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you might say about being uncivil, you are a large part of the reason why participating in any discussions on this page is a tortuous experience. You are crowing about hair-splitting pedantry and ignoring what is plainly understood by most editors. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You still evade the request to parse the sentence as you claim you can? Noted. Now you note: before this RFC discussion, I was absent from this talkpage since December 2011. Don't blame me if it's a nest of confusion and contention, which ArbCom has placed under special scrutiny. KillerChihuahua's RFC is founded on linguistically inept hair-splitting over whether "should" entails "obligation" in a policy provision; or rather, she presupposes a position on that question that many would find strange (we've never seen it advanced before). I didn't start this defective and time-wasting RFC; but I am equipped to contribute accurate analysis, if we ever get a fairly proposed and conducted RFC that focuses dispassionately on the issues. N oetica Tea? 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I don't care to dance to the tune you play. Parsing a precise sense is problematic because the phrasing is infelicitous, but the intent seems clear enough -- RM is the recommended forum to advertise potentially controversial changes and consensus is a prequisite before any such change is made. older ≠ wiser 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is another troubling aspect of the "gender agenda" crowd. Even as I indicated my disengagement from any aspect of the men's rights article on my talk page, Killer Chihuahua, suddenly becoming my new BFF, made it clear on my talk page that she expects a disclosure of my gender. WP:PRIVACY makes it clear that editors do not need to disclose personally identifying information. It also says that if an editor posts personal information about another person, "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information". Although I have made it clear that I do not wish to have such a discussion,  she has now threatened to consistently refer to me as male, unless I reveal personal information. This matter was brought out in the ArbCom case, and I thought it was put to rest. I have no idea why the gender identity people are becoming newly confrontational about this, but I do not wish to participate in such a discussion from this IP, and I do not wish to be referred to with gendered pronouns at this time. If someone believes such a discussion elsewhere would be useful, fine, but do not make further attempts to make me part of such a discussion. Neotarf (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is grossly false as any glance at your user talk page can verify. I wished to avoid insult by using the wrong gender, and expressed my respect for your choice not to reveal it. I also informed you that I would cheerfully refer to you by whatever pronoun you wished. That you could twist that around the way you have is an astonishing feat - I feel strongly it goes well beyond mere ABF and into the realm of falsehood. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * STOP... This is an RFC about the text of this policy... it is not an RFC/U about editors. There have been far to far too many personal remarks already, and it has to stop... NOW.  Discuss the policy and the proposals for changing it without making accusations about each other. [Who wrote that?–Noetica]
 * @Mike... my statement that those who oppose change are a minority is based on my following discussions at ANI and Arbcom... and comments made by people who have not (yet) expressed an opinion on the RFC. Yes, among the ten or so editors who have opined so far, I would agree that the tally seems fairly even... but this is not a good sample of the entire Wikipedia community. I strongly suspect that if we advertized this RFC to a wider audience and brought in opinions from the broader community (something we should probably do anyway), we would get a clear majority saying that RM is recommended (or even preferred) procedure, but not a mandatory procedure.
 * As for whether there is confusion... things may well have been quiet for two years... but if you have been following this the way I have, you will see that there is confusion... right here, right now. I think the disagreements on this very page clearly indicate that there is confusion... beyond this page the issue has spilled over into ANI and even Arbcom.  Editors on both sides of the debate are making accusations and counter accusations of improper behavior, based on their interpretation of this exact sentence.  If that does indicate confusion, what does?
 * @Neotarf... I don't think anyone objects to recommending RM... as long as it is phrased as a recommendation and not a requirement. The POLICY is that titles should not be changed without consensus... the mechanism for achieving that consensus is secondary... any mechanism that will achieve consensus is acceptable - RFC, Mediation (formal or informal), Dispute Resolution, etc.  We highlight RM, because (in most cases) RM is going to be the best mechanism... but it is not the only mechanism. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, how could you base your statement concerning minority opinion on evidence from ANI (in particular), where the action was quick and dirty, and focused on one complicated instance? (Just half a day, it took: with named parties and others around the world unable to comment.) That could have little bearing on a major issue of policy interpretation. The specialists on titling policy are here, not baying with the crowd at ANI! And ArbCom? I have appealed to everyone to read what happened in those preliminary considerations. Who was mostly in attendance? A group of gender specialists: typically with their involvement undeclared, and most with little notion of the processes by which moves are managed. Even KillerChihuahua admitted she would ask for a referral to WP:RM, knowing what she knows now. The arbitrators chose not to take up the case, but went by what was presented to them. With all of its focus on KillerChihuahua and the particular circumstances. That is no indication of majority opinion, or correct interpretation of long-standing policy for the community.
 * [Two paragraphs added after KillerChihuahua's next comment:] Note, by the way: for all its faults this RFC is not only way better focused on the issue than anything at ANI or ArbCom has been: it is also way better advertised as such. Through the WP:RFC mechanism. But this RFC ought to be wound up, because of the fatal flaws enumerated above in this section. A new and proper one could be started: or more than one, since a general question of interpreting all policy has been raised.
 * Finally, if practically everyone agrees that RM is the best mechanism (and the only mechanism that gives a reliable central location for advising editors of controversial move proposals), why would anyone object to it being used every time? Why labour to allow alternatives that we agree are inferior?
 * N oetica Tea? 13:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [I have moved the following comment so that it does not interrupt my own immediately above; and note: it responds to what I said, not Mike.–Noetica] @Mike, re: "The arbitrators chose not to take up the case, but went by what was presented to them." Exactly... so what was presented to them? It was the argument that the RFC process was improper for settling a particular title dispute... it was the argument that the only correct process is RM.  As far as I know, this was the first time anyone ever made this particular argument.  As it turns out, the arbitrators declined the arbitration in large part because they rejected that argument.  In light of this rejection, I feel we need to clarify the statement the rejected argument was based on (so no one else makes the same flawed argument).  Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, several things were presented to the arbitrators, and they had to decide whether to take up the case as a whole. Read what I have said about the detachment or commitment of those who made submissions; and consider the checkered levels of their competence with Wikipedia titling policy. The arbitrators did not agree among themselves on anything much, except not to take up the case. The case would have dealt first with particularities: KillerChihuahua's behaviour as an admin; and also the propriety of the irregular move process she used, for an article that was undeniably controversial through and through. Then we might have had some weighty findings concerning policy and its general interpretation. But things did not proceed in such a way, so that desideratum still eludes us. What was clearly delivered by the ArbCom clerk, to me at my talkpage as the requester? A recommendation that the move be brought back into regular consideration by established mechanisms, like a proper RM move. A very useful procedural ruling. We'll see how that might be implemented.
 * N oetica Tea? 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that RM is often the "best" mechanism... I disagree that it is "the only mechanism that gives a reliable central location for advising editors of controversial move proposals". When you create an RFC and use the RFC template, a bot will post an announcement of the rfc at an appropriate RFC notification board... these notification boards are reliable central locations for advising editors of a controversial more proposal. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But Blueboar, the case of Men's rights proves that such alternatives fail. The RFC was notified at the board for RFCs, yes: but there was no hint of a proposal to move the page. Anywhere, except at the talkpage itself – found only by editors with a "local" interest in that page. It is inescapable: this resulted in a distorted view of consensus. Just look at the virtually identical but properly advertised proposal of November 2011; and just look at the present RM. What an unholy mess! On the other hand, if the plainest meaning of long-standing titling policy had been respected, and WP:RM had been used for the proposed move, it would have been impossible for the proposal to go unnoticed. It could not have avoided exposure at the place where the community expects to find such things: the location dedicated to advertising controversial move proposals, for community consultation and expert resolution. It could not have been hidden as something other than a move proposal.
 * N oetica Tea? 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not take my words out of context. Do not cite me; do not use my name. You are misusing my comment. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please supply the necessary clarification then, KillerChihuahua. I did my best. I have pointed out that you have misquoted and misrepresented me, more than once. But I got just stony silence in response. Perhaps these things ought to be addressed elsewhere, right? My talkpage? N oetica Tea? 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea... both of you stop quoting each other, then no one will misquote. Instead of arguing that the other person's view is "wrong"... explain why you think your view is "right".  Accept that it is OK for others to disagree with your views, and then try to persuade them to change their minds with sound argument. Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, much as I would like to leave such ragged loose ends to dangle, and much as I think this whole discussion is a pernicious waste of time, I cannot let your comment stand unanswered.
 * A sound argument is a valid argument with all of its premises true. KillerChihuahua presented an "argument" (or an RFC proposal, but not one that conforms to standard requirements). It rested on a questionable premise concerning "should"; and I have shown that premise to be false; or at least, standing in need of a further sound argument to support it. When KillerChihuahua fails to answer my critique, and others including you also ignore its detail, we must eventually conclude that rational process is not the norm here. KillerChihuahua and you have edited this policy page (under ArbCom sanctions) while an RFC is supposedly in progress, on the basis of that contested premise. You have edited this policy page (under ArbCom sanctions) while an RFC is supposedly in progress, on the basis of that contested premise. KillerChihuahua had edited against ArbCom instructions regarding this page, MOS, and all policy and guideline pages – while she was involved. [ Corrected. See edit preceding this one. N oetica Tea? 23:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) ] It becomes more and more pressing that we abandon this travesty, learn what can be learned from the mistakes, and start a rational and neutral RFC when we are ready. On the evidence so far, that may not be at all soon.
 * N oetica Tea? 09:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I suppose it is possible that I misunderstood your comments at ANI and Arbcom (and if so I apologize) ... so let me ask a few questions so that I can understand where you are coming from. I'll start with a basic question: Which statement is closest to your view about RM:
 * A) RM is the only acceptable procedure for determining consensus when there is a dispute over titles.
 * B) RM is the preferred procedure, but other procedures are acceptable.
 * C) There is no preferred procedure... any procedure is acceptable.
 * (Note: if none of these comes close to your view, would you please come up with a succinct statement that does reflect your view.) Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course I accept your apology! Your question is very welcome, and easy to answer: statement A is very close to my view about RM. It is closest to being the natural reading of the current wording; and it is certainly how most editors involved with WP:RM view the matter. One quibble, though. There is a difference between there being controversy (or likely controversy) and dispute. Every controversy involves disputation, but not very dispute involves controversy. WT:TITLE is right to use the word "controversial". Sometimes a technical matter can be raised at an article's talkpage, discussed collegially, or even disputed – then satisfactorily resolved without bothering the community with a notification at RM. Sometimes the issue would be large enough to involve an RFC, properly advertised to the community. Without misleading anyone as to the intent (contrast the recent and continuing mess at Men's rights). If no resolution is reached, then by the natural reading of WP:TITLE, anyone proposing the move ought to recognise it as controversial, and make use of the established RM mechanism. Look at Talk:Second-language acquisition. There is much discussion of that MOS-compliant hyphen. People are not saying "let's settle this here and then move the article". Let me quote verbatim from the talkpage: "Seeing as this looks like it will turn into a major debate, how about we just convert this section into a requested move discussion right now? Would anyone be against doing that?" Then everyone who knows and cares about unresolved move proposals knows where to look; and no one is left out of the process by which Wikipedia resolves these issues. As they were left out at Men's rights, with a cascade of ill consequences that has not abated. Does anyone deny that the proposed move to Men's rights movement was controversial? That is either incredibly naive, or just straight-out incredible: for an article under special community probation, hotly contested in practically all of its detail, and already the subject of an RM discussion that yielded a no-consensus result. N oetica Tea? 05:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course I accept your apology! Your question is very welcome, and easy to answer: statement A is very close to my view about RM. It is closest to being the natural reading of the current wording; and it is certainly how most editors involved with WP:RM view the matter. One quibble, though. There is a difference between there being controversy (or likely controversy) and dispute. Every controversy involves disputation, but not very dispute involves controversy. WT:TITLE is right to use the word "controversial". Sometimes a technical matter can be raised at an article's talkpage, discussed collegially, or even disputed – then satisfactorily resolved without bothering the community with a notification at RM. Sometimes the issue would be large enough to involve an RFC, properly advertised to the community. Without misleading anyone as to the intent (contrast the recent and continuing mess at Men's rights). If no resolution is reached, then by the natural reading of WP:TITLE, anyone proposing the move ought to recognise it as controversial, and make use of the established RM mechanism. Look at Talk:Second-language acquisition. There is much discussion of that MOS-compliant hyphen. People are not saying "let's settle this here and then move the article". Let me quote verbatim from the talkpage: "Seeing as this looks like it will turn into a major debate, how about we just convert this section into a requested move discussion right now? Would anyone be against doing that?" Then everyone who knows and cares about unresolved move proposals knows where to look; and no one is left out of the process by which Wikipedia resolves these issues. As they were left out at Men's rights, with a cascade of ill consequences that has not abated. Does anyone deny that the proposed move to Men's rights movement was controversial? That is either incredibly naive, or just straight-out incredible: for an article under special community probation, hotly contested in practically all of its detail, and already the subject of an RM discussion that yielded a no-consensus result. N oetica Tea? 05:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Enric Naval. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

break - To see this RFC ended
@ Blueboar, where you and I disagree is about the level of confusion, not the substance of the policy. You state above: ''I don't think anyone objects to recommending RM... as long as it is phrased as a recommendation and not a requirement. The POLICY is that titles should not be changed without consensus... the mechanism for achieving that consensus is secondary... any mechanism that will achieve consensus is acceptable - RFC, Mediation (formal or informal), Dispute Resolution, etc. We highlight RM, because (in most cases) RM is going to be the best mechanism... but it is not the only mechanism.'' I completely agree with that position. What I don't agree with however is that the current language in the policy is inconsistent with that position and is causing confusion. If the word should is being interpreted as obligatory in the statement under review, then we must assume that the 41 other times it is used in the policy it is being interpreted as obligatory as well. So if we are to assume one instance of should is causing confusion, then shouldn't we be changing every instance of should in the policy to ensure nothing that isn't obligatory, isn't percieved as such? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, a page wide review of "should" isn't a bad idea (a lot of the arguments about this policy stem from confusion as to what is "must do" policy, and what is "recommended procedure") ... but one step at a time. Right now we are faced with a dispute over one particular use of "should".  This RFC is focused on one particular sentence.  We had a case where an editor objected to an RFC closure (at both ANI and Arbcom) based on a particular interpretation of this sentence... the editor did not argue that there was a flaw with the wording of the RFC, or that the closer was biased, or that the closer misread the consensus... or any of the other reasons people usually object to RFCs. The objection was based on a novel argument (at least I have never seen it made before)... that the entire RFC process was an improper (illegal?) mechanism for settling disputes over titles.  This novel argument was rejected (at both ANI and Arbcom).  The question now is... how should we clarify the policy to make it clearer that RM is not the only mechanism that is acceptable... so that no one else makes this rejected argument. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just interpolate something here. Blueboar, perhaps you need to read the full and final text of my ArbCom request again. You write: "... the editor did not argue that there was a flaw with the wording of the RFC, or that the closer was biased, or that the closer misread the consensus... or any of the other reasons people usually object to RFCs." That's just wrong. I objected on all of those grounds: an RFC whose wording was flawed by being manifestly deceptive; a closer who was biased; a closer who misread the state of consensus (given that the community had not been alerted to the proposal to move). And note: if the component of my argument that concerns the wording of the provision at WT:TITLE was "novel", it was in response to KillerChihuahua's "novel" reading of that provision. We had never seen it before, though the provision had been in place since September 2009. This "rejected argument"? No argument of mine has been rejected in a full and unbiased consideration. That would be the business of a properly instituted RFC, at a proper location, structured and conducted with goodwill – and where necessary, accompanied by thorough linguistic analysis. Bring it on! This is not such an RFC, by any stretch.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a case can be made for any mechanism being obligatory as long as one of the five pillars says. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Clearly the policy is meant to favor principles over exact wording.  But it also seems there is some obligation for the person who decides to ignore all rules to explain why they do not want to follow longstanding procedures and policies painstakingly built by consensus. If someone wants to break the rules but doesn't want to say why, well, you can imagine the reason must be pretty bad if they don't want to say what it is.
 * If you bypass the RM process, how do you then insure that an article is not taken over by a clique that ignores the pillars of neutrality and civility and simply wants to dominate an article in order to OWN it and avoid consensus building? If you establish a procedure that bypasses consensus, think if you want the various conspiracy theorists of this world using it as well.
 * It was pretty clear early on that there would be no sanctions in this case. I was frankly curious about how it would work. I think we also need to let some time pass to give the article a chance to develop.  This situation was originally presented as a case of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, specifically "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." But if this was just a case of "Well, we used to do it this way, and I'm not familiar with the current procedure so can't we just go ahead", then what is the objection to closing the RFC at this point? It's supposed to be a dead horse, why is no one walking away? Neotarf (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neotarf... I have a problem with the idea that you are "bypassing" the RM process by using an acceptable alternative process. Let me give you an analogy... If I want to go to Boston, one option is to get into my car and drive. However, driving not the only way to get to Boston... I could also take the train or fly.  All three are acceptable ways to achieve the same goal.  I don't "bypass" one means of transportation by using the another.  To relate this to title disputes... the goal is to get find consensus (Boston). Their are several processes (means of transportation) that will get us to that goal ... the RM process, an RFC, Mediation, etc.  We all agree that the RM process is an excellent way to determine consensus (just as driving is an excellent way to get to Boston)... but it isn't the only way.  There are several acceptable ways to determine consensus.  You don't "bypass" one by using the other. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, your example only works with moves that are not controversial. I have boldly moved articles myself without seeking any consensus whatsover, and no one has ever come back and said they were controversial.  But if someone had, then the current practice is to revert, and for the person who wants the move to seek a new consensus. In this case, several reasons were advanced against the move. They were never answered, and the consensus-building process was suppressed. Neotarf (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, just a question. Given the wording at WP:Deletion, do you believe that an RfC would be an acceptable method to conduct at deletion dicussion with the result that an admin closes the RfC and deletes the article with the article never going through CSD, PROD or AfD?  If the answer is yes, then what is it about the wording of this processes section [deletion process policy] that doesn't make it obligatory?  If No, then then what is it about the wording of this processes section [deletion process policy] that makes it obligatory? Regardless, just like title changes, deletion is a consensus based process. Maybe we can learn something from how it is worded. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I answer, I just want to note a few things: First, WP:Deletion seems to avoid phrasing things with "should" (thus, there is less confusion as to the intent of its various policy statements)... Second, deletion is not always based on consensus. As that policy lays out, "There are four basic processes for deletion" and three of them don't involve determining a consensus (the policy lays out what these non-consensus situations are).  Third, I note that WP:Deletion makes it explicit when something is a recommendation... which make it clearer as to what is required and what is merely a suggestion.
 * Now to answer your question... No, I do not believe an RfC is an accepted process for determining a deletion consensus... why? Because WP:Deletion is unequivocal in saying that deletions take place "after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions".  I think this makes it quite clear that in those situations where deletion is to be based on consensus discussions, the only venue for determining that consensus is to be AfD.  That is a restriction on venue that (as far as I know) enjoys almost universal consensus and support.  Unlike the (argued) restriction on venue for title change discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Something else that just occurred to me (since you brought up AfDs)... not infrequently, in the course of an AfD discussion, someone will raise the suggestion that a more appropriate solution is to move the article under discussion to a new title. If this suggestion gains consensus, the closing admin does so... Thus, a discussion that takes place at AfD is another accepted way to determine that there is a consensus to make a title change (surely you would not suggest that we undo all the page moves that resulted from consensus at AfD... and yet they didn't take place at RM). Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No but, I wouldn't recommend that editors take an article to AfD if they just wanted the title changed. Titles get changed all the time outside the RM process, we allow that. However for disputed titles, there has to be some mechanism that allows for a balance of pure consensus and policy based decisions.  RM functions well that way, one by a consistent, clear method of advertising disputed moves to a wide audience (something RfC doesn't currently do) and two by emphasizing via WP:RMCI and WP:MRV that title decisions should be based on title policy, guidelines and naming conventions (something that RfC doesn't currently do).  So if we embark on a path that in any way encourages RfC as a means to resolve and execute disputed title decisions, then it would be prudent to ensure that those decisions are made under the same set of rules that RMs must abide by.  I tend to disagree with you that 3 of the 4 deletion mechanisms are not consensus based.  It just that the consensus is strong around what should and should not be in WP, thus the deletion decision becomes clear.  The same thing happens all the time with titles.  We don't allow special characters (Symbols such as "♥", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles) so when Joe Editor creates an article with the title Joe Bob♥ another editor comes along, familar with the consensus based policy and moves the title to Joe Bob.  Not much different than CSD.  The consensus is already in the policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are actually really close to complete agreement... because I would not recommend that editors take an article to AfD for a title change either. I would recommend RM.  In fact I would go further than just a recommendation and say that RM is preferred.  However, RM isn't the only option, and I don't think there is harm in saying that (and, since we have already had people misread the policy, attempting to argue that RM is the only option, I see a distinct benefit in clarifying the point). Consensus is consensus... no matter what process you use to achieve it. You still get to Boston, whether you drive, fly, take the train, or walk.  Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which Boston? The Boston to which you can walk may not be the same Boston to which I can walk. The whole point of the RM process is that if highlights that a local consensus is not a consensus if it is contrary to to the AT policy. I think you raise an important point with AfD decisions to move a page. If we use "must" for moving a page via RM rather than "should", then the AfD participants would have to place a RM on the talk page of the article and those in favour of the move at the AfD would have to re-express their opinions at the RM. I don't think there would be a consensus for that. So if we go down the "must" path we will have to create a formal list of ways a page can be requested a moved in place of what is currently one imprecise sentence. When you say "already had people misread the policy" how many have we had misread it? Is it enough to justify changing? To date I do not think it has been shown any wording that is not at least as open to at least as much misinterpretation as the current sentence. -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Should" has long been used for lists of rules on both sides of the pond. I consider "must" in that context to be British, no matter how many textbooks published in the UK say otherwise. Neotarf (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case which "Boston" does not matter... because in my analogy we are all trying to get to the same "Boston". (to relate it directly to the discussion "Boston" = "Consensus to change the title"), we all start the journey from the same point ("consensus not known"... call it Denver, Colorado if you need to). It may be quite difficult to reach a consensus (just as it may be quite difficult to reach a particular "Boston")... but the goal is still to get to Consensus, and any method that will actually get you there is valid. No matter which "Boston" you are equating to Consensus ... there are multiple ways to get there from Denver. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that is not what has happened here. The example is more like a bus full of passengers holding tickets for Boston who find that the sign on the front of the bus is now being changed to Boofoo Egypt, even though there is an available empty bus standing next to it, and even though the last time they tried to change the sign, the City Hall issued an ordinance prohibiting such a hijacking of a bus, precisely because it was full of passengers holding tickets for a different destination. Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how your analogy fits into things. What does the "sign on the bus" equate to in our discussion, and how has the proposed clarification changed that "sign"?
 * The point I was making in my analogy was that we don't have to take the bus in the first place. We could opt to take a train instead, if we think a train would be better.  As long as we travel together, with the goal of reaching a specific place (a determination of consensus), why does the vehicle we travel in (ie the process) matter?   Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I think we were talking about "title". And you're still talking about situations where there is no potential controversy. If the bus is going to Outer Mongolia, or maybe Men's Rights Movement, but the sign on the front says Boston, or maybe Men's Rights, then you have potential controversy, whether or not there is consensus.  The title should reflect the contents of the article. In the case of Men's Rights, the first RM was denied because the contents of the article did not match the proposed title; the article was about "Men's rights movement", plus the article had been rewritten since the RM was started. That still needed fixing, in spite of all the supposed eyes that had been on the article during the so-called RfC.  So that was the first problem.  The second problem was that the proposed title didn't follow MoS rules for caps in titles, i.e. "Men's rights movement" instead of "Men's Rights Movement".  The third problem was that they wanted to write a new article about "men's rights movement" and there was not already an article named "men's rights movement", so why didn't they just take the newly written article and put it into the available title?  Why go to all the effort to move the page and trash the old article instead of just making a new article? There was a fourth problem too that Noetica brought up, something about having two articles with two names, instead of just one article with a redirect, if I recall correctly.  So four problems right off the bat, without even reading the article, just by looking at the title.  It looks like this article needs some people who know about title policy to look at it and get it on the right track. So why not take the time for a proper discussion, with some fresh eyes?  But the people involved seem deeply resistive to that idea. Very curious.  Neotarf (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of all this talk of buses and destinations. If we must persist with that analogy, let me report my own experience in the same spirit. I "bought a ticket" for consensus over the choice of title for Men's rights; that is, I contributed at a properly advertised RM in late 2011, where exactly that topic was addressed. The finding was "no consensus to move". Then later, another bus came along: not advertised on the schedule of departures at WP:RM, and with a sign at the front (where RFCs are notified) that gave no clue whatsoever about any proposal for a move. I did not see that bus; and no one who did see it advertised (at an RFC noticeboard) was duly informed of the hoped-for destination. I was left at the kerb, and so were a bunch of other editors who watch WP:RM like hovering raptors looking to apply WP:TITLE accurately. In fact, this second bus did not reach any worthwhile destination, let alone consensus for an article that is famously controversial and always will be. How could it find its way to wide consensus? Only the narrowest, most local, most partisan "consensus" – at best. I for one (and there are others) was denied the opportunity to contribute evidence and argument, which I can contribute in abundance. I, and others with a commitment to the process at WP:RM, have a go-anywhere pass to get onto any such bus. So has the whole community, beyond vested interests and merely local concerns. But we need to know where all the buses are and where they intend to take us. This can only happen with due advertisement at WP:RM. The case of Men's rights amply demonstrates how things fail without such predictable and orderly process. ♥ N oetica Tea? 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... believe it or not, that all helps me to understand where you are coming from a bit better. Now let me share how I see it - as an outsider who was not involved in the Men's rights debates (and then perhaps we should drop the bus/plain/car analogy)... In 2011 the community took a trip to Consensus... on that trip everyone took the RM Bus.  Unfortunately the bus broke down and never got to its destination (no consensus).  Then, in 2012, a second trip to Consensus was attempted.  This time people took a train (RFC).  They reached the destination (Consensus was arrived at).  However, you were still sitting at the bus station and did not know that the train trip was happening.  To an outsider it appears like you are simply whining about the fact that people took the train instead of the bus... and insisting that the trip be taken a third time... why? because you think we are not allowed to take trains.  After all, the policy says we should take the bus! (note: this may not be what you are actually trying to say... but it is how your arguments is coming across).
 * Now, as an outsider, I look at all that and say "yes, the policy does say we should take the bus... but is that what we want it to say? The policy mentions the bus because we think the bus is a really great way to get to consensus... we even agree that the bus may be the preferred way to get to consensus. However, it isn't the only way to get to consensus... it's OK to take a train (or some other vehicle) instead ... we should amend the policy to make that a bit clearer."  Does this help you to understand where I am coming from? Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I don't know how many more times I must present my analysis before people grasp the simplicity of it. Your use of "whining" is immensely disrespectful. So are the plain implications of your wording "what you are actually trying to say". No trying about it: I am saying. Do not presume to speak for the outsider. And do read what is clearly written. I am surprised, having complimented you in ArbCom proceedings to which were a party but of which you now claim complete ignorance, how inattentive you have been. Note, though: it is not completely unexpected. This discussion is a sprawling and unruly Leviathan. See my first post here this year, above: 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC). The chaos I found here, prompting that post, might suit some people's aspirations for consensus in policy; it sure as hell doesn't suit mine: or ArbCom's, for that matter.
 * Yes, you are allowed to take trains. But the buses labelled "consensus for the proper title of article X" are the vehicles everyone interested in page moves is on the lookout for; not the trains labelled "some concerns about the content of article X" – or "Barfoo, Egypt", as Neotarf judiciously notes. ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did no one think of this before? It would have been a really good way to flip Yoghurt to Yogurt. See WP:Lamest edit wars.  Hmm, that one also looks like it involved discussions on whether the requested moves process should be changed. Neotarf (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Mike Cline's move to close this "RfC". To the launcher: please read and adhere to WP:RFC, particularly where a proposal is likely to be controversial. And to everyone: there's an awful lot of text here; short posts would be appreciated, since walls of text keep out other editors whose views might be useful. Tony   (talk)  13:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify one thing. The heading To see this RfC ended immediately above my comment was added well after I made it in response to a previous comment.  Because of apparent edit conflicts, others added the section heading and refactored the discussion in a way that make it appear I added the section heading.  See . --Mike Cline (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RM not required
Proposed rephrase so editors do not think RM is the only legitimate way of discussing proposed moves. This has caused confusion and frustration. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The current instructions in Considering title changes include "''Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." This is written as an absolute. RM is not always necessary, there are other avenues. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive; longstanding practice has not required this. We have had at least one case of an extended wikilawyering due to taking this as a no-exceptions absolute. I think the section text should be changed to "''Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should seek broad consensus before any change is made. Listing at Requested moves or holding a request for comment is advisable. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." This more accurately reflects actual practice while retaining important caution about seeking wide consensus. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: having move discussions in places other than RM is being cited as a sanctionable policy violation. Current practice and ANI say it isn't. Can we change the verbiage to reflect that?
 * No longer being considered, see below.KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... my experience has been that title changes that are controversial are almost always raised at WP:RM (ie seeking third party opinions at RM is the widespread longstanding practice) Can you give us some examples of controversial title change proposals that were not advertised at WP:RM? Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know of several, but the one which brought me here is here. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI now in Archive 764 -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone remember the epic Pregnancy RfC which was so controversial, that Jimbo had to close it? Some editors contested the decision but none of them was so creative as to come in after the RfC ended and request a move protection because the move wasn't advertised at WP:RM. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This example was not a move request, it was an RFC about what photo to use in the lead. Why on earth would anyone want to discuss a photo at Requested Moves? This just doesn't make any sense. Neotarf (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a move, correct. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be thinking of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, which followed an Rfc and a MedCab case, and was about multiple page titles. ArbCom did not in that case prescribe RM, but specified consensus be reached, and did name RM as a possible method for determining the page names. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And the method used was an Rfc, approved by ArbCom: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. RM was not used in the post-ArbCom, ArbCom ordered, discussion to find consensus on the Abortion article titles. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) It seems to me that a lot of the confusion described in that ANI would have been avoided had the move proposal been listed at RM and not combined with a number of other issues in one RfC. The purpose of listing RM's is to allow for broad-based discussion focused on the title. I haven't done an analysis of the participants in the RfC but I'm guessing it was mainly involved editors. Would you agree? Joja  lozzo  16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would have prevented the problem of the wikilawyering and subsequent debate on ANI; I do not think that is addressing the problem. RM was originally created for technical moves only. While I appreciate that it has morphed into primarily a page for discussion about controversial moves, I do not believe it should be the only place for discussion. The editors of this page did not anticipate an issue with using Rfc, nor should they have, as the result of the ANI report shows. While it might have prevented problems, that is taking a prescriptive approach, which is not how Wikipedia traditionally does things. We write what practice is in policies, not what we think it would be in a perfect world. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Since RfC is not recommended in this article for page moves, I would think editors may well have anticipated such issues. b) As I understand it, your proposal also takes a preventative approach. Aren't you also attempting to address the issues that arose at Men's rights? Joja  lozzo  17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. those "issues" were addressed at ANI, where it was found that an Rfc is perfectly acceptable mechanism for such a move discussion. THIS is to prevent frustration and confusion to future editors. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose RM has a specific purpose--to list and advertise potentially controversial title changes. RFCs are an umbrella process that can cover just about anything under the sun and thus don't get the focused attention by those interesting in title policy.  Conducting an RM under the guise of an RFC does not provide any benefit to WP or its editors, it merely is a way to obfuscate a move.  The example provided wasn't very clean and would have been much better handled as an RM. Is an RFC for a title change subject to WP:RMCI? and a WP:MRV? We don't conduct RFCs for deletion debates, nor should we for title changes. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not the original purpose, nor is it borne out by how the tools are laid out. Moves can be done by anyone. If we are to have a single page only location for these discussions, it is important to have another Rfc and discuss moving the ability to move pages to admins only, as in delete ion debates, Your example does not hold water. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like a specific answer to this? Is an RFC for a title change subject to WP:RMCI? and a WP:MRV?  In other words if an editor closes an RFC on a title change, can that decision be judged in light of WP:RMCI and/or can the editor's decision be reviewed at WP:MRV? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is outside the scope of this discussion, and so far as I know no discussion regarding that has been held on WP. MRV is brand new; certainly no previous moves had such a page available to them. If you think moves made by methods other than RM should be open to MRV, I suggest you start a separate Rfc, and also suggest you wait until this one is over. Do you think any page move should be subject to MRV? KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rfcs have been used since at least 2004 to discuss potentially problematic moves. RM was created for technical moves only, its role in potentially problematic moves is far more recent. Your verbiage claiming an Rfc on a move is intended to obfuscate is an insult to everyone who ever created, participated in, or closed such an Rfc, and I request you retract such hostile and accusatory phrasing. It does not advance the discussion at hand. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point I am trying to make here is that I seriously question what advantage an RFC has in making a title change over the RM process which has a set of long-standing closing instructions and a new, but tested, Move Review process. Currently in the Category:Wikipedia requests for comment there are 110 entries.  No one can discern which ones (if any) are for title changes by reading the RFC title. Additionally, RFC closing instructions] provide no guidance what so ever about making policy/consensus based title decisions.  The fact that an Admin has to close an RM where the target title already exists if the move is being made over a redirect is irrelevant. Many RMs have been preceded by RFCs where editors discussed and reached consensus on alternative titles and article scope.  The subsequent RM becomes much cleaner, but still was subject to WP:RMCI and WP:MRV.  What I haven't heard yet is why we should allow potentially controversial title changes to be made outside the long-standing RM process.  What advantage does that have for the community? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the fact that it is accepted practice means nothing? YOu want a policy which does NOT accurately describe current accepted practice? Begging for problems and wikilawyering and wasted time and effort? The only way to ensure RM is always used is to make it an admin only feature, which I find inadvisable, but if as you state it should be handled like Afd then that is the only way to do it. And no, the original purpose of the RM page and process is not irrelevant, as you were citing it's only "purpose" to be the more recent one, usually formerly done by page discussions and Rfcs, to be its only purpose. That is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose and propose to remove words "potentially controversial". The rare exceptions when the title change should not be passed though WP:RM — typos, AfD outcomes, etc. — should be noted in the policy, but any non-trivial title change is potentially controversial and should be done via WP:RM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it must be made an admin-only feature. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many non-typo, bold moves are made every day without any discussion. Requiring all of them to go through RM would create unnecessary bureaucracy. I think the phrase "potentially controversial" is spot on. Joja  lozzo  17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, especially considering the backlog already present. -— Isarra ༆ 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the backlog is one reason some editors choose to avoid RM if the discussion has no anticipated problems. An Rfc fits neatly between BOLD, page discussion, and the other end of RM. Why go to RM if no issues are anticipated? And yet the opposes on this page feel everything but typo's should. I consider this needless bureaucracy. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look here. A ton of moves, which people disagreed with, being handled in a civil fashion on a talk page. This is how problems with moves normally work - RM is not used for most moves, ad MRV is not needed to correct moves with which people disagree, most of the time. It is that simple. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And people can do that, but it's best keep policies simple. Encouraging people to start out ignoring RM is not going to help anything. -— Isarra ༆ 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief, no one is suggesting anyone "start ignoring RM" where on earth did you get that idea???? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised appropriately, either by holding an request for comment or listing at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."
 * Oppose. This doesn't really seem needed, considering both versions apply to potentially controversial ones and both mention getting a consensus, and requested moves should be a good way to bring in the uninvolved editors needed for any meaningful consensus. If something needs an RfC, most folks who could make that judgement would know how to go that route anyway whilst keeping to the intent of the policy, and it seems others could be directed that way after the request if needed as well. But what do I know? -— Isarra ༆ 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are aware of the recent two days and thousands of words expended on this, because an editor was under the impression that an RM is required, and the decision on ANI that Rfc's are acceptable mechanisms for such discussion? I hope to clarify actual practice in this page, to prevent such wasted time and effort. As it reads now the policy is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem there was that it was on ANI. That said, RfCs can certainly achieve the same results, but given that they are neither directed at people familiar with the process nor any subset more likely to actually care (like those frequenting WP:RM), that route doesn't seem advisable in most cases. For the ones for which it would be, well, policies are just policies, not the absolutely law of the land, especially when they only say 'should whatever'. -— Isarra ༆ 17:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the problem was that one user thought RM was absolutely required, whcih is what the current words say. It isn't, which is the decision on ANI.NOTLAW was cited about a dozen times to the complaining editor on the article talk page, to no avail. THAT's why it went to ANI. The problem is the wording above. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People will always find a way to misinterpret policies regardless of the wording, as well as the nature of policy in general on the project - that there are those who would consider the current wording grounds for taking measures against those not using WP:RM is proof enough of that, but all we can really do about such things is deal with them as they come up. Having policies with wording that applies best to common cases best such that people have a baseline from which to start, however, should always be best practice, and in the meantime WP:IAR applies to the rest, same as with anything. That's not to say the wording here can't be improved, however. Maybe mentioning the need for consensus first in order to emphasise that that's the more important thing and then bringing in RM as the example would work better? Though there are many ways to achieve a consensus, WP:RM is the most applicable to these and its use should certainly be encouraged if discussion is needed. -— Isarra ༆ 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm wide open to phrasing suggestions. My aim is to ensure this is accurate, I'm not married to my suggested phrasing. The phrasing Dave Souza tried would work for me, as would probably hundreds of other ways to phrase it. My issue is that the verbiage is inaccurate right now, and leading people to think sanctions are in order if RM is not used. We need to address that, because that is false. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The recent phrasing implies that RM is essential, contradicting the RM page itself which states "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." If an informal discussion can be appropriate, an RfC fully meets the requirement for advertising. It also goes against the informed discussion the recent ANI, which concluded that ""An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved". Obviously RM isn't the only way to get the needed consensus, as an improvement I've made a minimal modification to this titles page:


 * Please propose improvements rather than reverting to an unclear version which contradicts RM. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change until such time as there is clear consensus that we want to make title changes via RFC as well as RM. If that is the consensus we should then make the appropriate changes to WP:RMCI and WP:MRV to ensure they cover RFC generated title changes. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ho hum. You seem to be edit warring to make Wikipedia self-contradictory and unworkable. RM has a backlog to 13 July, and you want to force all "potentially contentious controversial" discussions there instead of them being resolved on the article talk page as it says you can at RM? Since these linked pages are specific to RM, not sure why they should apply to moves resolved in talk page discussion, but feel free to reword them to comply with RM. . dave souza, talk 20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) controversial corrected, 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, There has always' been consensus that Rfc is a method to determine consensus to make changes. It is RM which is the newer method. And clearly, Rfc has not been put to pasture. You are acting like I'm suggesting a change in how things are done. I am not. I'm saying we need to correct the error on this page, because it is confusing people. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One must always take care in using absolutes. Always The RFC process was born on Feb 1, 2004, the RM process on Oct 9, 2004 and the RM process incorporated controversial and potentially controversial moves on Sept 9, 2006. We have been operating the current RM process to make title changes for nearly 6 years. It may be a newer process, but it is not a new process. I have seen no evidence of the mass confusion this proposed change seems to fix.  One hard-headed editor in an ANI discussion doesn't represent confusion among 138,000 editors. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Making Rfc a method used two years longer than RM, and nowhere has anyone ever said it could no longer be used - along with less structured talk page discussions and mediation. The point is that the words on the policy page say RM is theonly way, and it isn't. It may be your preferred way, and it may be the best way. But it sure hell is not the only way. And I didn't claim "mass confusion" I claim, correctly as it happens, that the policy page is phrased incorrectly, and gives inaccurate information. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. We are talking apples, oranges and peaches here with the obvious anomaly that they are all in the same basket. First, WP:RM makes no reference to WP:RFC (peaches), but instead suggests resolving title issues through informal talk page discussion (oranges).  I fully support informal talk page discussions, but would not consider WP:RFC as an informal discussion.  Second, RMs (apples) take place on the same article talk page as would a title change related RFC.  To suggest that RMs are not a talk page discussion, even by implication, is disingenuous. The major differences between the two processes are this.  RMs are a formal title change process (since 9-9-2006) for controversial move, fully supported by a set of closing instructions that emphasizes consensus and title policy considerations, a centralized method of advertising where in one list, every RM underway can be seen with a brief rationale as to why a move is being suggested, and a format review process to deal with controversial RM closes.  On the other hand, RFCs are a formal, broad brush process.  When used for a title change, there are no set of closing instructions to emphasize the need for consensus and title policy considerations, no method of advertising them as title change RFCs, and no method for review if someone is unhappy with the RFC close.  Both these processes would take place on the same talk page.


 * … to make Wikipedia self-contradictory and unworkable. RM has a backlog to 13 July, and you want to force all "potentially contentious controversial" discussions there instead of them being resolved on the article talk page as it says you can at RM? Since these linked pages [RMCI and MRV] are specific to RM, not sure why they should apply to moves resolved in talk page discussion


 * I think your math is weak here and but the motivation clear. By encouraging RFCs (30 days) as an alternative to RMs (7 days) the potential for large backlogs is even greater.  Because title change RFCs are not advertised as such, you would have to seek out closers, instead of relying on closers to work RMs via the advertised list.  Finally, since an RM and an RFC on a title would be conducted on the very same talk page, the last comment indicates that you would prefer to make title changes sans any set of closing rules or review process.


 * In my opinion, encouraging the use of RFCs to make title changes in WP:AT is bad policy and will cause more work and more contention. WP:RM must be consistent with WP:AT, not the other way round. Informal discussions are fine, but formal RFCs have zero advantage in title changes over our long standing RM process.  Until such time as someone provides serious rationale why a potentially controversial title change should be handled via an RFC instead of RM, we should not change the policy.  --Mike Cline (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * RMs are not required for controversial moves. Any discussion in the talk page, a RfC, a AfD, can result in a page move. This was made clear at the ANI discussion. We should tweak the wording to reflect current consensus on wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why an RfC could not be combined with a requested move discussion to gain wider discussion and that is easily added to the quoted language. The problem is that most of the people who know the ins and outs of article titling in detail would only come across an RfC by happenstance but monitor WP:RM. Also, RfCs are much more subject to only those involved in a particular article being aware of it--there are far fewer editors at large who monitor RfCs in general, than there are those who participate in move discussions on article they are uninvolved with. So it is better that all controversial moves be listed at WP:RM. Policy language is always subject to improper treatment as invariable statutes. As Isarra said above though, "having policies with wording that applies best to common cases best such that people have a baseline from which to start, however, should always be best practice, and in the meantime WP:IAR applies to the rest, same as with anything." Adding the language proposed speaks to the rare case and suggests RfCs are just as good a mechanism for debating highly contentious moves as is WP:RM, and that's not true. So I have no problem with a change that suggests WP:RM is not the only possibility but is the preferred and better forum for discussions expected to be contentious, but oppose any language that simply provides other options as if equivalent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording doesn't say "expected to be contentious", it says "Any potentially controversial proposal". Surely it's best to start with the option of talk page discussion, as recommended at RM, and if the issue proves contentious, then take it to RM and accept the delay of at least 7 days, potentially 5 weeks at current backlog, before the move is actioned by an admin. Proving that someone should have expected a move to be contentious just adds another route for argument about editors instead of getting on with improving articles. . . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuhghettaboutit, you say RM is the "preferred method" - preferred by whom, precisely? Some prefer not to use RM. The current wording makes it sound like they will be risking sanctions if they do not use RM. Yet that is not the case. Why lie to the end editor and confuse them? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Keep the policy simple. Use RM for potentially controversial moves. An RM results in an RfC format anyway and it has clear guidance and automation for notifications. Providing another route with RfCs is likely to increase controversy due to inconsistent notification procedures. Joja  lozzo  22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How you define what moves aren't potentially controversial? This looks like a way of delaying all moves, and wasting admin time. . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the RM page provides good guidance on that. "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." To answer your question directly, a potentially controversial move would one for which you have a reason to expect a dispute. Joja  lozzo  22:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not suggesting we "provide another route" we are suggesting the currently accepted practice be accurately outlined on the page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any proposed move where more than one editor is likely to oppose the move on some grounds meets this criteria. What we are losing sight here of is our actual title policy WP:AT and its supporting MOS and Naming Conventions that are so conflicted, that just about any rationale for a title change can be supported with some aspect of policy.  Our policy makes the likelihood that a title change will be controversial very high.  Yet on the other hand, WP:RMCI enjoins admins to close RMs based on policy and consensus.  I am a bit baffled by this math This looks like a way of delaying all moves, and wasting admin time.  If an RM lasts 7 days and an RFC lasts 30 days, which process delays a title decision longer.  Indeed, if an admin must make the title change, which wastes more time—reviewing 7 days of discussion or 30 days of discussion? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, RM is a great method. It avoid errors that sometimes happen in other methods. However, it is not the only method and that is falsely stated on policy page. Why are we lying to editors? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop claiming "accepted practice". Using an RfC is clearly not accepted practice for page moves project wide. That is evident in the opposition your proposal is encountering. "Practice exists in the community through consensus" and we're working on consensus right here. Joja  lozzo  23:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't at all "clear" that it isn't accepted. In fact, the exact opposite - it is "an accepted mechanism." I'm going by the recent ANI decision and 8 years of Wikipedia experience. Rfc was used before RM ever existed, and while it has flaws (so does RM) it is an accepted method. See dave souza and Eric Navaal on this page for confirming opinions. You may not prefer RM, but that doesn't make it illegal or unaccepted. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "illegal" or "unaccepted under the current language, nor is that language a lie. It simply states the typical and reliable way that pages move discussions normally happen, under a method that draws far more people steeped in article titling to it than any other method we might choose, and let's be clear: RfCs alone are a vanishingly rare way of discussing page moves as compared with WP:RM. You happened to cross paths with one editor who treated the language in the policy as a hidebound statute and this is fresh in your mind. Step back and ask yourself how many times has this happened in the past because of this language? Once ever? Never before? The language appears fine as it is to me and we shouldn't be writing policy to address what can best be described as a one-off. But I will nevertheless throw some language out there that wouldn't bother me as a change:"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. In some cases for especially controversial moves or where wide discussion is thought necessary, the requested move discussion can be combined with a request for comment. Though not unprecedented, using an RfC alone for a page move is not recommended as it will not likely draw comment from those most familiar with article titling and tends to reach only those already involved with the page at issue."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting language, but how would it work in practice? Do I open and RM and RFC simultaneously?  What if an admin comes along and closes the RM after 7 days one way, and then another editor comes along and closes the RFC after 30 days the opposite of the RM close.  Which takes precedent?  Do I run an RFC, find an admin to close it with a move decision, then run an RM?  What happens if the RM closer decides differently from the RFC?  RFCs are useful for sorting out the best choice of alternative titles when there are many possibilities as to what a new title should be.  A 30 day discussion among editors familiar with the topic is useful pre-RM.  However, once an RFC determines the most appropriate alternative title, the RM process ensures wide-community opportunity for involvement and is supported by instructions and processes that ensure WP:Title policy is adhered to. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted you're offering alternative suggestions, but I'm afraid I agree with Mike that this won't work. The suggested verbiage seems to say that if there is a lot of contention, then there should be both an Rfc and an RM, and the implication seems to be that RM is ok for minor issues, but you should add Rfc for major ones. This is not addressing the concern which is the reason for this Rfc, and it adds, rather than removes, complexity and requirements. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose all these changes. I'm comfortable with requiring that any controversial move be advertised at WP:RM. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While you might be comfortable with such a requirement, it's not part of the policy as currently written. That says that any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at RM, "should" means it's recommended, it does not mean "must". This nuance of meaning can cause misunderstandings, which is why proposals are being discussed to make the strong recommendation clearer, and show reasons for that recommendation. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I'm fine with changing "should" to "must". I think I'm still opposed to all the numbered proposals below, but they're hard to keep track of. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just for the record, this and indeed any change arising from a procedurally inept and prejudicially presented RM. See ample detail below. If anyone wants a proper RM, without POV assumptions from the outset, start one. Declaration: I voted at the 2011 RM, but was among those denied an opportunity to contribute to the irregular RFC at Talk:Men's rights in 2012. ☺ N oetica Tea? 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose—I've been watching this whole shemozzle for some time. KC, I don't go with the underlying POV, and I don't go with the wording. Sorry. Tony   (talk)  13:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this and any changes. I'm not sure what we're voting on, since the original question has been withdrawn, but given the history of WP:TITLE, if there is any confusing language here, it would have been used for edit warring long ago. Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What he said. --BDD (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * The point is that the current verbiage is inaccurate. If you don't care for the verbiage I suggested, fine. Work with me here. But those who think I'm suggesting we change anything other than the way things are worded is misunderstanding completely. I'm not suggesting we change current practice, or put RM on the sideline. Secondly, insofar as "preferred method" - well, the preferred method is on the talk page. Next best would be RM and Rfc. Next best (by which I mean things are bad now) is Mediation. And of course the last place anyone wants to be is in some ArbCom ordered vote like Talk:Gdansk/Vote. So no one is saying RM isn't a wonderful solution. We're saying the verbiage on the policy page is, unfortunately, wrong. Let's fix that, shall we? KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will ask and re-ask this question. Before we change policy, Why would we prefer or encourage the use of RFC over RM to make title changes. What advantages does it have?  The fact that's it is a method used in the past, does not require us to change policy to encourage it in the future.  Why would an RFC be preferred over an RM on an article talk page? --Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I will answer and re answer. I'm NOT talking about changing policy. I'm NOT talking about preferring Rfc over RM. In fact, I'm perfectly fine if you suggest wording which strongly prefers RM over any other method. BUT I'm NOT fine with the current wording, which lies and says RM is the ONLY method. Please let me know if this is still unclear to you. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would disagree, you are talking about changing policy. Currently WP:TITLE says: Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. That's today's policy. You are proposing changing that to add RFCs as a title change process. The fact that title changes have been made by other means is irrelevant.  What is relevant to your position is the need to provide some logic as to why the community would want to encourage RFC as a means of making title changes, when an effective RM process exists to do that.  What is the advantage of making a title change via RFC instead of RM when in fact both type of discussions occur on the same talk page?  That's the relevant question. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and currently the policy page is inaccurate. I don't care if Rfc's are even mentioned. That was just my suggestion. But the words that make it seem like RM is absolutely required need tweaking. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose "fixing it" and moving away from the long standing custom of using WP to advertise controversial moves. To get a wider participation sometimes moves are also advertised with RFCs, but that does not preclude their listing RM. Two points:
 * Whatever the reason for starting RM, in less than 24 hours it had already started to become a process that handled controversial moves..
 * At a practical level, after an RfC has run for a month, the bot removes the RfC banner, then what? There is no process in place for deciding who decides if a consensus has been reached, or if the consensus was for moving the page to make the move (thanks to bots messing about, it ie often it is not possible to move a page to a redirect without admin intervention (due to edit histories)). What does an editor do? go to ANI and ask for an administrator to move the page, or go to RM and put in a request? It seems to me that it is simpler to place the initial request into the RM process and allow that process -- that had been tailored to handle moves -- take its course. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we "move away" from RM. I'm suggesting a wording tweak. Please see my explanation to Mike, above. I really don't see why this is being so difficult for me to convey, but apparently I just suck at explaining this. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did a user ask you to close the debate? Why did they not post a request at RM a week before the RfC was due to close? Why didn't you advise them to put in a request at RM for the move? I am not at all sure that your nutshell "In a nutshell: having move discussions in places other than FM is being cited as a sanctionable policy violation. Current practice and ANI say it isn't. Can we change the verbiage to reflect that?" at the start of this section is accurate. As far as I can tell no one is suggesting sanctions against you, rather they were asking you to reconsider you move, (or another administrator to revert it) as it had not been listed at RM. In the current policy wording where is the "sanctionable policy violation" described for an administrator who decides to close a move debate that has not been advertised on RM? Also in practice an editor who makes a bold controversial move is not sanctioned, (unless they do it to game the system -- say in the middle of a RM) and even then not for a first offence), instead all that happens is the move is usually reverted and a RM is then initiated. -- PBS (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although this post isn't quite an explicit threat of sanctions, combined with some of Noetica's other posts, I think KC's reading of it being someone threatening sanctions is pretty reasonable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just for the record, any change arising from a procedurally inept and prejudicially presented RM. See ample detail below. If anyone wants a proper RM, without POV assumptions from the outset, start one. Declaration: I voted at the 2011 RM, but was among those denied an opportunity to contribute to the irregular RFC at Talk:Men's rights in 2012. ☺ N oetica Tea? 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No one has been able to show that using RFC for requested moves is workable (if I understand correctly what is being proposed here), and the OP has withdrawn the question. Neotarf (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have missed that Arbcom found it so: the method used for the extremely contentious Abortion set of page moves was an Rfc, approved by ArbCom: Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. RM was not used in the post-ArbCom, ArbCom ordered, discussion to find consensus on the Abortion article titles. So ArbCom found it acceptable, and it worked just fine. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed verbiage 4
I'm counting dave souza's attempt as 2, and Fuhghettaboutit's as 3. "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." to "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should seek broad consensus before any change is made. Listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves may be advisable" This avoids any mention of Rfc. Feel free to offer alternate phrasing - perhaps "is advisable" or "is encouraged" etc. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What about changing the verbiage from
 * This addresses my objections in spirit but perhaps not in exact wording. However, as I understand it, the Men's rights move proposal did not follow your proposed rewording since no broad consensus was sought. Would you agree? Joja  lozzo  01:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the Men's rights. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing "seek" to "obtain". Then, maybe, "Listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves is recommended to notify editors with article title experience and interest." Joja  lozzo
 * That would work, although I confess "obtain" doesn't quite flow for me... maybe "arrive at" or "achieve". But yes, your wording would work too. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't agree with that change. RM is a specific process that appears on a list frequented by people who are often well versed in that specific process. It's the best and most obvious place for a desired move to be listed. I've found myself mildly frustrated on occasion in the past for missing a move discussion where I felt I had valuable input because it wasn't done as an RM and thus didn't appear on the RM list. Refining the system into specialised parts is a good thing, I don't think it's advisable to encourage using the broad tool of RFC to address something specific like move requests when we already have a specialised Move Request tool to accomplish just that; removing the strong suggestion to use RM in the wording would be a movement in the wrong direction. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're NOT looking to add Rfc specifically, how many times do I have to say this??? Seriously. It isn't even in the verbiage you're responding to, at all. Not looking to replace RM, either. Just looking to tweak the verbiage so it does not use the word "should" which is strongly prescriptive and implies this is the only possibility. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "List all potentially controversial title changes at Wikipedia:Requested moves to notify editors with article title experience and interest."? Joja  lozzo  02:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested revision: "Do not implement potentially controversial proposals to change a title without broad consensus. List potentially controversial title changes at Wikipedia:Requested moves to notify editors with article title experience and interest." Joja lozzo  15:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That might work, but instead of the bare "list all" what do you think of dave souza's tweak of Fuhget's proposal "strongly reccommended". That seems stronger wording to me than beginning with "List all.." which does not stress that RM is the much preferred approach as well. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we must recommend then "strongly recommend" would be my preference. But didn't my version's imperative voice seem compelling enough? :-) Joja  lozzo  21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this may be subjective but your wording read more like a suggestion to me. It doesn't say it is important, or is preferred, or recommended, or what seems to be the version gaining consensus right now, strongly recommended. I think the verbiage you suggest may go to far the other way. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose any change at all. Having said that, a breach should not be a crucifiable offence, and if necessary a confirmatory RM request can be held easily enough. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just for the record, any change arising from a procedurally inept and prejudicially presented RM. See ample detail below. If anyone wants a proper RM, without POV assumptions from the outset, start one. Declaration: I voted at the 2011 RM, but was among those denied an opportunity to contribute to the irregular RFC at Talk:Men's rights in 2012. ☺ N oetica Tea? 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose.  Why use such vague descriptors as "seek" and "broad"?  And "may be advisable"?!!1? This is a policy page, not an essay.  Let's not introduce weasel words. Neotarf (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The existing verbiage is better. I am trying to see the noble purpose behind the word changes, but it is difficult.  If you wanted to say that discussion of page changes was permissible before taking it to WP:RM, that would be okay. --Bejnar (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed verbiage 5
Well, one way to address the issue KillerChihuahua perceives as a problem, is simply to start the existing sentence with " It is recommended that any potentially..." This keeps in the strong language but would not allow by a fair reading the charge which led here that the policy expressly only allows moves to be discussed at WP:RM. As above, I don't think there is actually an issue with the current language, but I don't think this change introduces any problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is recommended" would indeed address the issue. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be careful with "recommended". This is the policy document for titles. If everything's going to be recommended, the page should immediately be made a style guide. Tony   (talk)  04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We see on this very page, under Treatment of alternative names the words "alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter " Recommended is not a word to avoid, it is a word to use accurately. And this is a policy page about RM, which is not required. Recommended is apt. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...as well as Images, Edit warring, and Proposed deletion, Bot policy, Harassment, and probably others, as well as the blocking policy, which i find most similar to this situation. Undoing another admin's block is, as we all know, a very bold move indeed. It is not prohibited, but it is a serious matter. Yet the instructions on Blocking policy say " If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Now that is a serious situation, and yet it is only "recommended". I suggest that even a very strongly adhered to standard may be correctly described as "recommended." I think Fuhghettaboutit has suggested an excellent choice of phrasing. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Fuhghettaboutit's phrasing. KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as a considerable improvement. The full wording could be reviewed if gains consensus. . . dave souza, talk 07:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most Strongly Oppose - This suggests that it's okay to make a change that is potentially controversial without consensus. It only "recommends" getting consensus. It's contrary to the spirit of the project and will lead to disruption. Joja  lozzo  15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Consensus is always required. There are multiple ways of arriving at consensus, but in no case is it optional, and the verbiage does not say anything of the sort. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole sentence would read as follows
 * The added recommendation applies to consensus phrase as well as the RM phrase. The sense of the sentence as we have it now says that RM should be used and consensus should be reached. With this change, both of those would be only recommendations. We know that consensus is required (a "must") but the proposal is farther from saying that than what we have now (since "should" is interpreted by many here to mean "ought" not "must"). Joja  lozzo  16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One option I would support:
 * Joja lozzo  16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"charge which led here that the policy expressly only allows moves to be discussed at WP:RM" Please could you provide a diff where this charge was made. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the ANI discussion that brings us here? How can I provide one diff when that was the tenor of the entire discussion? Okay well, from the opening post of that discussion "...but the participants in this recent RFC ignored the established principle in titling policy at WP:TITLE: all moves that are likely to be controversial should be processed through the formal procedures laid out at WP:RM." (boldface in original).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read that, and my understanding was not that discussion on a talk page which are controversial should only be advertised on RM, but they ought to be advertised at RM -- something that does not seem unreasonable to me. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That different people read the wording differently is why we're here discussing rephrasing. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to me the better wording until now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this version, per Fuhghettaboutit. I also think KillerChihuahua's rebuttal in this section to Jojalozzo's opposition is correct. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  10:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me to respond there. Please review my position and reconsider. Joja  lozzo  16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - however, I think RM is more than just recommended... I would call it preferred. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a number of ways to determine consensus. RM is one of them, although it may be the "recommended" step for potentially controversial moves. The policy as written now provides ample opportunity for abuse. If you don't like the outcome of an RfC, just claim that the move is controversial, take the closing admin to ANI, and request move protection for the article. I am familiar with the RfC that caused so much drama in the past few weeks and I am convinced that the move was not controversial. In fact, last year, an RM yielded the same consensus to move as this year's RfC. 17 experienced editors who presented policy-based arguments voted to move the article and only 10 editors opposed the move, including four SPAs and an editor who was banned twice from editing in the topic area. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sonicyouth, you have omitted your declaration of interest in that "consensus". Ways to determine the community's consensus? They do not include falsely advertising a discussion so that those monitoring the page (most with a firmly settled agenda) are among the few to hear of any proposed move. Also not included: selective and vehement concern over single-purpose accounts at the 2011 RM but not at the 2012 irregular RFC. (The RFC was brought by a single-purpose account! Did you complain? Did anyone complain, in that inner circle who wanted the move that he covertly called for? No. Some single-purpose accounts are OK, it seems.) Also not included: the rapid closure by an admin who had already declared her opinion on a core issue in the discussion – to a contributor during the 2011 RM. Ample opportunity for abuse? So we have seen! And quite ingenious and particular it was: sidestepping the established WP:RM process for a move, because WP:RM failed to deliver the desired outcome when it was tried in 2011. Maintaining the assumption of good faith can sometimes be a struggle, Sonicyouth. N oetica Tea? 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't classified information: Anyone can see for themselves that 17 editors supported the move and 10 opposed it in 2011. More important than the numbers were the arguments. Yes, there was a consensus. The closing admin made a mistake but those who voted support let it go and moved on. This year's RfC didn't yield the result you preferred. This is unfortunate for you. You've certainly tried everything to challenge the consensus. You have, however, been told at several venues that there is nothing wrong with the decision of the admin who closed this year's RfC. A new RM is underway. If that fails, you have the move review process as another option.
 * I agree that AGF can be a struggle especially after reading comments like "There are a bunch of women editing that article, and I can't help but think that biases the content" and "When I looked at everybody's contributions, I also saw a lot of interest in Lesbian issues...". For the record: There is one woman editing the article but that's another issue. I cannot help but think that it might be your choice of reading material that makes you see "hidden agendas" in other editors' edits. Take care. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sonicyouth, you have still omitted your declaration of interest in that "consensus". Why?
 * On the points that you do make, though:
 * 11 editors explicitly opposed at that RM in 2011; but the vote of one was suppressed by KillerChihuahua, and you have not counted it. At least another two editors expressed serious reservations about the proposed new title. Because some people don't count accurately, and misreport to suit their own opinion, we have a rigorous RM process to discern the facts.
 * As you say, consensus at RMs is not a matter of mere numbers, anyway. The details are important. Read, at Requested moves/Closing instructions:
 * "'Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.'"
 * If you think this closing admin (a particularly careful and experienced one) made a mistake, there are accepted procedures to follow. Not included as an accepted procedure: misleading advertising, and bypassing the whole WP:RM process to engineer a more "favourable" verdict.
 * You write: "This year's RfC didn't yield the result you preferred. This is unfortunate for you." No way! It is not unfortunate for me. Note, yet again: on Wikipedia I am a MOS specialist, with a strong second interest in titling policy (see the top of my talkpage). I did not know about the irregular RFC; that is my complaint. And I did not know that a move was again contemplated for Men's rights. That was not notified to the community. Anywhere.
 * I do not "challenge the consensus" in the sense you allege; I say that there was no community consensus established, because obviously the community was not told about the proposal – as policy requires that it should be.
 * Those stridently voicing their opinions at "various venues" were mostly like you: concerned with Wikipedia gender articles (and not declaring that involvement). Certainly that was so at ArbCom. The arbitrators had mixed views in response, dependent as they were on the testimony of those making submissions. They did not take the case, and I have made it plain: That's fine by me! There is a valuable a record of opinions to refer to, now.
 * Knowing that a new RM had been started for Men's rights, the arbitrators still cleared the way for a challenge of the irregular RFC – through the new process for move reviews. They delegated consideration of the issues to that process. That was a valuable decision from them, and one that can be implemented in due course.
 * Take issues you may have with User:Neotarf to Neotarf's talkpage, please.
 * If you question my impartiality and my choice of reading matter, take your concerns to my talkpage. If you need it, I will give you a longer list of what I read, OK? The book I mention there is topical, and has just recently appeared: The Second Sexism (2012). A closely articulated and detached academic study of the theoretical and practical issues: as we might expect, right? The author is a distinguished ethicist and professor of philosophy. If you think the book might bias anyone, think again. Better still, read it: and then take any concerns up with the author, perhaps. I intend to email him myself, over a couple of technical philosophical points.
 * Take care. ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 22:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The editors who supported the requested move in 2011 were the numerical majority and, more importantly, they presented policy-based arguments whereas those who opposed the move did not. This isn't surprising considering that half of the oppose voters were new SPAs with poor to no grasp of site policy. The remaining editors opposed based on tu quoque arguments of "they do it at article X", "article X" being Women's rights in all cases. You argued that since there is a women's rights article, moving "Men's rights" would be acting "in favour of sex discrimination, and against equal treatment". I am glad that someone pointed out that there is no policy that would support your argument. I wasn't around at the time to explain it to you. To recap, yes, there was a clear consensus to move the article in 2011 and there was a clear consensus to move it in this year's RfC.
 * Looking at your contributions to the topic area, I believe there is reason to question your impartiality, yes. For example, your additions to the article in question were textbook examples of WP:OR, unsupported by the sources, and were reverted or removed. You still seem to feel sore about it judging by your comments in the ArbCom case and the barely veiled hostility toward those who disagree with you. The idea of banning you from the topic area (as suggested by one ArbCom member) seemed reasonable to me, but I thought that your forum-shopping made you look bad already so I stayed away.
 * I came here to support the proposed rephrasing. You felt the need to comment here so I replied here. I do have issues with Neotarf's contention that women editors bias Wikipedia's content, yes, and it's a shame you don't. I also have issues with the way you've been flogging a dead horse for weeks, going on and on about "agendas" and "POV", implying that there's this big conspiracy underway to move the article by devious means. We get it, you really don't like KC. Everyone got it in the ANI discussion and the subsequent ArbCom case. Please let it go and move on. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sonicyouth, you have still omitted your declaration of interest in that "consensus". Why?
 * On the points that you do make, though:
 * Your complaints about the perfectly regular RM in 2011 are irrelevant here. Such complaints should go through established channels, as mine consistently have. They do not justify a campaign of wikilawyering to subvert the whole WP:RM process.
 * You write: "Looking at your contributions to the topic area, I believe there is reason to question your impartiality, yes." But you confuse giving an opinion and partiality. Why do you not query KillerChihuahua's impartiality? Could it be because you are not impartial? While purporting to be a detached admin overseeing conduct at Men's rights, she went to my talkpage and disputed the substance of a contribution I made at the RM. She still purports to be a detached admin, amazingly enough, in overseeing Men's rights movement.
 * You link to a contribution of mine to the article. My characteristically informative edit summary: "(→‎Social security and insurance: Restore a useful current example of the alleged inequality discussed in this section, with references to verify it)". As I recall, people had been asking for hard detail, with references. I answered that call, with hard detail supported by two references. You censure that as "original research", when the points made were publicly available, unsynthesised matters of Australian social security law? A strangely partisan diagnosis of WP:OR! Do you always do that, in all topic areas – and with material that tends in any direction, on various spectra? Most of my contributions have been to tidy things, and to supply facts where they were asked for. Well, someone has recently changed a grammatical "who" to an ungrammatical "whom". I will not again correct that (with full explanation, as last time). The territory is too treacherous even for that! A topic ban?? Get real.
 * You confuse hostility and vigorous pursuit of due process. Read, once again, the priorities I reveal at the top of my talkpage; and review my record of contributing to development of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and my insistence on respecting them.
 * You have no idea of my feelings (if any) concerning KillerChihuahua.
 * You have no reason to make assumptions about my view of Neotarf's comments that you object to; and that view is not relevant here.
 * You confuse "forum-shopping" and following all proper steps in the proper sequence, to pursue a serious issue that affects the fate of the whole WP:RM process – and the application of long-settled policy at WP:TITLE.
 * You resort to slogans to put down a legitimate effort to support the "rule of law" on Wikipedia. "Flogging a dead horse" is colourful and cheap rhetoric; but it is neither accurate nor persuasive in this context. Very many editors are concerned about recent attempts against consensually established policy and procedures, as this unruly RFC amply shows.
 * If you want any more long discussion on the tangential matters you raise, start a conversation at my talkpage. Do not add to the clutter here, in a way that demands even more words from me. ♥
 * N oetica Tea? 23:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not complaints. I am pointing out to you that the consensus in this year's RfC already existed last year. Thus, it was not achieved by some Machiavellian plot, as you seem to suggest, but a perfectly regular RfC.
 * You do not seem to understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This is very troubling. Why your additions to the article in question were original research, was already explained here. It was also explained to you that your assertion that having an article on women's but not on men's rights would be acting "in favour of sex discrimination, and against equal treatment" was not based on any site policy. If you wish further explanations, please let me know on my talk page.
 * And it all comes back to KC. It really is time for you to accept the consensus, drop the stick and move on. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sonicyouth, I'm wondering if you understand about article titles and WP:VOTE. You seem to be under the impression that title is decided, not by consensus, but by some sort of "vote" where the majority stomps on the minority. But in fact, the title policy is a way to standardize titling across the Project and is laboriously worked out by consensus. The policy is there for a reason.  You can't have a small group of editors that decides to just ignore policy and form their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS without wide consultation across the Project.  You also seem to have formed your idea that the first RM was "wrong" by counting "votes", but if you read the decision, it says the proposed title did not match the contents of the article. That's pretty basic.  An article about "cats" should not say "fish" at the top of the page.
 * And I still find very curious that so many WP:PERSONAL remarks and accusations appear here and on my talk page whenever I question why there is such a deeply held aversion to community input on this title, or whether certain contributors are being (or have been) driven away from editing the article. Neotarf (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Q for Noetica: you state "the vote of one was suppressed by KillerChihuahua" - please strike that, or specify to what you are referring. I beg for brevity. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Briefly, KillerChihuahua: When you have cleared your backlog of similar requests from me, I will be happy to supply the details you ask for. ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just for the record, this and indeed any change arising from a procedurally inept and prejudicially presented RM. See ample detail below. If anyone wants a proper RM, without POV assumptions from the outset, start one. Declaration: I voted at the 2011 RM, but was among those denied an opportunity to contribute to the irregular RFC at Talk:Men's rights in 2012. ☺ N oetica Tea? 04:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Tony. This is a policy, not a style guide.  See also the discussion of "passive voice" and "imperative" below. Neotarf (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I don't believe that the "It is recommended" language solves a problem, I believe that it creates one.  The way I see the problem that is trying to be fixed, is not one of language in this policy, but one of possibly excessive zeal in enforcement. If people who live and die by the word would be a little kinder and see a little more grey, I don;t think that there would be a problem here. --Bejnar (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed verbiage 6
When considering "should" in preference to "recommended", please note that in Beeb English, "Should is used to give advice and make recommendations and to talk about obligation, duty and what is expected to happen. Reference is to the present and the future. Should is similar to must but is not as strong as must." It gives as an example, "You should take your umbrella". No one is going to get sanctioned for not taking their umbrella, though they may get wet. The essential thing here is to get consensus for any move, and the current paragraph has a gratuitous dig that "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Is that really necessary as policy? Also, "advertised at RM" is rather misleading as the template and discussion is on the article talk page, and isn't it automatically listed at RM?

Proposed revised paragraph is shown below, .. dave souza, talk 23:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good with this except we've lost "broad consensus". We need to make it clear that a local consensus is insufficient for a potentially controversial proposal. Otherwise, very nice work. Joja  lozzo  02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Joja lozzo  02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joja lozzo  02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can support this as well, and I'm good with Joja's suggested tweak. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I am good with "broad consensus" instead of "consensus" but not the other changes made. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just getting repetitive and long with the consensus... broad consensus.. and... I prefer dave's orginal version. I'm good with getting "broad consenus" but not tied with the RM. Broad consensus is important for any title change, not just the ones which are at RM. KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the same objections. I can go with this where I just added "Broad" at the start:
 * Joja lozzo  02:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Joja's most recent revision, and would be good with Dave's earlier one too. I think any wording should clearly indicate that RM is the preferred pathway, but also make evident that any pathway that creates broad consensus* is acceptable.  RM has a number of advantages over other pathways, but none of them are compelling enough to mandate it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Joja's most recent revision, and would be good with Dave's earlier one too. I think any wording should clearly indicate that RM is the preferred pathway, but also make evident that any pathway that creates broad consensus* is acceptable.  RM has a number of advantages over other pathways, but none of them are compelling enough to mandate it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Joja's most recent version works. It includes broad, which dave's version did not and which caused Joja concern, and it does not tie needing broad consensus with RM, which concerned me because it seemed to read that such consensus was needed only at RM. It mentions RM and not any alternate methods, which concerned several editors because they felt it might encourage editors to view other methods as equally desirable for controversial page moves. So far as I can see, Joja's most recent version addresses everyone's concerns. This will work. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can concur with the suggested wording. Note I changed procedure to process as that is what RM is, a process. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * {ec} Question: Is a controversial title decision that is made outside of the RM process subject to WP:RMCI? and WP:MRV? In other words, if a group of editors (lets say 6) reach broad concensus via a talk page discussion on a title decision, but the title clearly is inconsistent with WP:TITLE policy, is that decision subject to WP:RMCI guidelines or can it be brought to WP:MRV?  The reason I ask is related to the very essence of this RFC--that an editor thought that other title change methods should allowed: Proposed rephrase so editors do not think RM is the only legitimate way of discussing proposed moves. This has caused confusion and frustration.  Now the suggested wording above, says essentially what the current language says, except its worded differently.  However, if editors now believe the above language encourages other methods, then we need to be prepared to ask the difficult questions about WP:RMCI and WP:MRV, otherwise alternative methods will just be used to circumvent long-standing processes. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would seriously question an RFC with only 6 people... I don't think that constitutes a "broad consensus". Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you've misunderstood the purpose of this Rfc to begin with, I'm not surprised you're misunderstanding why not changing how things are done actually addresses my concerns. No one ever tried to change the language to encourage other methods, in fact this language "strongly recommended" is actually better at encouraging editors to use RM when they think there might be an issue. It's a pity you think my aims are different than they are, but I've tried about 8 times to explain to you and you can't seem to get it into your head that no one is trying to encourage other methods or change policy. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think thou protests much for no reason. When a group of editors rewrite the verbiage on a policy page, they are changing the policy.  When a policy statement such as: Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.. that has been around since late 2009 is changed, I think that reflects a policy change.  If the statement has caused confusion (doubtful except in isolated cases), then it has caused confusion for a least 3 years.  We are rewriting the statement to say: Broad consensus is essential for any page move, and it is strongly recommended that any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should use the Wikipedia:Requested moves process for discussion on the article talk page which will get the attention of regular contributors who are familiar with the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves. Which in my mind says exactly what the original statement says with an explanatory why added.  Where I get concerned and why I am asking these questions is that if this is not a policy change, then how does it eliminate the confusion that the RFC initiation alludes to: Proposed rephrase so editors do not think RM is the only legitimate way of discussing proposed moves. This has caused confusion and frustration.  (my emphasis added) to your opening remark in this RFC.  There is nothing personal here KC.  Policy change in WP has consequences, and if we don’t carefully evaluate those consequences we end up causing more, not less confusion.  If we are not changing the policy, then how does this new statement remove the confusion that you allude to in the opening of this RFC?  I like the new statement BTW, because I believe it can be cited in almost any title change scenario that RM is the only method to discuss and execute controversial title changes.  But that’s my interpretation of the statement, others may see it differently. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You still seem to misunderstand the term "should", which as the beeb point out doesn't mean "must". By adding the emphasis on strongly recommending RM we're not changing the policy to say it's the only method, it may be the best but policy and practice allow other methods: clearly RfC is allowed, however undesirable you may find that, and if a potential controversy is resolved in informal talk page discussion as proposed in WP:RM then there's no need for the formal procedure. The new statement is aimed at clarifying the existing policy and making it more accessible to newcomers. . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, for the sake of discussion and let pretend I am an average editor asking these questions. Also, I think it is very important to understand the consequences of policy change. Let’s say editors start using RfCs to discuss and execute controversial title changes. Along comes a group of editors that decide an article needs a new title but clearly that title doesn’t comply with WP:Title policy—either critieria, MOS and/or naming conventions.  Because editors who understand title policy weren’t aware of the RfC (highly likely) no one who participated in the RfC recognized the non-compliance with policy.   One of those editors is an admin, involved in the discussion and makes the move.  Is that move subject to the provisions of WP:RMCI which layout the balance of consensus and policy in making title decisions?  If another editor not involved in the RfC sees this change, recognizes it is inconsistent with title policy, can that editor initiate a Move Review on the RfC close?  Can another uninvolved editor immediately open an RM discussion to ensure the title change gets a wider audience in complete disregard for the RfC decision?  If the answer to these questions is Yes, then we’ll need to modify WP:RFC guidelines to ensure that title changes made through that method are covered by the same rules RMs must follow.  If the answer to these questions is No, then making title changes via RfC will become a great method to circumvent long-standing title change practice. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do the proposed changes in wording affect any of this? At present, informal talk page discussions and RfC both give optional ways of getting consensus on a page move. WP:RMCI is a guideline and as such isn't mandatory, but may still give useful guidance on issues that could arise. The status of Wikipedia:Move review isn't clear, but again it would give agreed guidance on how to deal with problems. If you've found anything wrong with a title move where consensus was determined by a RfC, do please tell us about it. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the procedure to process change; does anyone object to that tweak? KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with both tweaks. . dave souza, talk 15:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am fine with "procedure" to "process" change and I concur with Mike that we need to address the RMCI and MRV issues. Has anyone mentioned this discussion on the RM talk page? Joja  lozzo  16:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WT:RM. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just for the record, any change arising from a procedurally inept and prejudicially presented RM. See ample detail below. If anyone wants a proper RM, without POV assumptions from the outset, start one. Declaration: I voted at the 2011 RM, but was among those denied an opportunity to contribute to the irregular RFC at Talk:Men's rights in 2012. ☺ N oetica Tea? 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed here. It seems like a jumble of some ideas proposed in other sections, plus advocating the use British English, tacked together in a long convoluted sentence that no one will be able to parse. Policy statements should be concise. Surely this idea(s), whatever it is, can be expressed in a way that is clear in all varieties of English. Neotarf (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of policy consideration to statement
I'm suggesting some additional words to not only emphasize the process of moving titles, but familarity of title policy as both important aspects of this. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see a problem with the addition, presumably MOS and naming conventions would be wikilinked to relevant guidelines. . dave souza, talk 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilinked the MOS, not required for naming conventions as they are a long shopping list already linked on WP:title. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. This clarification is important. Joja  lozzo  23:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit verbose to me, but I can't think of how to include it without the slightly run-on sentence. So, no objection to the addition made by Mike. KillerChihuahua ?!? 07:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we have consensus for this last version, as modified by Mike? Any objections? KillerChihuahua ?!? 07:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this addition proposed by Mike is desirable. The MOS should not be included as the MOS is about content not about article titles. Mixing it into this policy is a mistake. Also there is no need to mention guidelines (naming conventions) in this section. -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we trim the details, but keep the verbiage about gaining the attention and assistance of more experienced editors. As it is Mike who desired this level of detail, I ask Mike to try to find a compromise which meets both his and PBS' concerns. I'm relatively agnostic about this particular bit, myself. It seems to me that we can say "more experienced" without delving into the specifics. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Version 7
A more concise verbiage that covers the bases. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. PBS, does this address your concerns? KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Works for me too... one thing I like about this version is the opening phrase... it clearly separates "must do" policy (get consensus) from "ought to do" procedure (RM). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. This addresses my concerns about the requirement for broad consensus and sufficient emphasis on using RM. Joja  lozzo  02:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sequence in section
If section 6 gains broad consensus, in my view it's a better start to the section than the current negative paragraph which is focussed on discouraging changing one controversial title to another, so the sequence should be changed. We've also not addressed the related issue of uncontroversial changes which are covered by the section heading. Propose the following as a short introductory sentence, which could be a paragraph in itself or could be added as the first sentence to the Proposed verbiage 6. . dave souza, talk 15:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We must take care here to not send editors around in circles, many uncontroversial moves have to go through the WP:RM technical moves process. It is surprising how many of those listed are in fact controversial moves and migrate into the main RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From your earlier comments I thought you wanted to minimise explanations, it's a fair point that technical moves should go to RM as WP:RM/TR, but then that's covered at Moving a page which the above proposal directs editors towards. Do you want to add mention of the technical moves issue to this section? . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to this addition, merely pointing out that RM covers more than controversial moves and we should take care in our wording. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this addition makes a good first paragraph. To make sure I understand the complete proposal so far, would it end up something like this?
 * Joja lozzo  20:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically that works ok for me, it could be preferable to change the order of the second and third paragraphs to put more emphasis on getting broad consensus before getting into the detail of controversial titles. However, I'd be content with either option. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Switching paras 2 and 3 improves it. Joja  lozzo  23:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is an improvement. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is an improvement. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm unsettled by the aggressive moves here. We should give it all a rest before jumping in at this stage. Tony   (talk)  09:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you don't see the need for clarification of an ambiguous and misleading section. Your assistance in proposing improved wording will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 15:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised he is characterizing civil discussion on a talk page as "aggressive moves". KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Baby steps
While we're discussing sectiontitle, etc, and whether to mention other forms of finding consensus, I suggest we at least make the change that seemed to have broad support. Lisitng here in its own section on the talk page for discussion.
 * Change Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves to It is strongly recommended that any potentially controversial proposal to change a title be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves in order to a) strenghten the verbiage and b) avoid confusion. The actual meaning of "should" is less strong than "strongly recommended", and yet we paradoxically have the problem of editors thinking "should" means "must". This edit would fix both misinterpretations. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note 1: The section for discussing this edit would be higher up I think (somewhere in ).
 * Note 2: I think "strongly recommended" is clearer than "should" but not necessarily stronger. This is because "should" has a range of meanings and "recommended" does not. In American English "should" implies a duty or obligation which, in my mind, overrides a strong recommendation. Joja  lozzo  18:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was discussion along these lines in, note that the beeb talks UK English and it says "Should is used to give advice and make recommendations and to talk about obligation, duty and what is expected to happen. Reference is to the present and the future. Should is similar to must but is not as strong as must". So it can mean duty or obligation, but it can also be used for "you should take an umbrella, it looks like rain" which is rather weaker. I think we're all agreed that controversial moves should generally go through RM, in some circumstances RfC can be acceptable: see the comments by arbs in the recently closed request for arbitration. This policy should recommend RM, and the village pump proposal can potentially make that the simple and obvious route. I support KC's "baby steps" approach of allowing step by step agreement and implementation rather than holding out until everything is in place. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're to consider KC's proposal it should be offered as part of the RfC, not in this section about uncontroversial title changes. Joja  lozzo  04:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved, although it really isn't necessary for all segments of an Rfc discussion to be clustered. KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still recovering from head cold, so can't follow all of this. But having over years a couple times had the problem of people moving potentially controversial titles and then having a hissy fit over it being brought up they were not following proper procedures, anything that keeps the policy UNDENIABLY CLEAR and EASY to follow is good. Anything confusing or leaving room for silly arguments against policy is bad. CarolMooreDC 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hissy fit", "silly arguments"? Uncivil and derogatory characterisation of views and priorities you do not share, at a page that is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. ☺ N oetica Tea? 23:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't think that applies to general descriptions of general behaviors when I can't even quite remember who it was and what article, not to mention that I don't name specifics. But if "getting angry" and "questionable arguments" is considered to be more civil, I'll replace the offending phrases. CarolMooreDC 00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose –  it sounds to me like the "strongly recommended" language opens up more of a gap than the "should" language. When a policy page says what editors should do, they should do it.  Putting it as a recommendation, even if strong, sends the wrong signal.  If you want to strengthen the "should", this is not the way.  I think this RFC has run its course.  Let's leave it for now.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote
We should add a footnote: While the normal way to discuss renaming an article is through a requested move, a Request For Comment may also result in a page move. This would acknowledge that RFCs can and do result in pagemoves, while encouraging RM discussions as the default way to do things. Monty 845  22:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another possible way
The objective would be to make it more difficult to game the system by moving articles without people knowing.
 * Why not require notification of all proposed page moves by an RM (which may reference an RfC), and have a set wait interval, but also require that proposed page moves be flagged by the proposer as either (1) Controversial/Potentially Controversial/"Don't Know if PC or not" or (2) Not Considered Controversial (this would be like marking a page edit as "minor").
 * Possibly there could be a third category "Please Expedite", but I don't know if this would be necessary in practice.
 * Possibly there could be another check box for "I will move it" or "Request Admin. to move it".
 * Or would such a system be totally impractical and unworkable? LittleBen (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I make an move that is Not Considered Controversial, specifically when changing a hyphen to a dash or when uncapitalizing, with no known opponents, I just move it. Is that wrong, or would Not Considered Controversial ever be used? If not, then flagging everything as Controversial/Potentially Controversial/Etc. wouldn't change anything. Art LaPella (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal fails to WP:AGF and contravenes WP:NOTBURO. If the concern is about RM regulars not knowing, then a system could flag up all page moves for review by those regulars, but uncontroversial moves should not be impeded. Surely it's more practical to make using RM easier, as discussed at WP:VPR. Suggestions for implementation can be made there. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The role of template:movenotice in title changes
I began examining Category:Proposed moves to see what the scope of non-RM move discussions was and how the category was being used. The proposed move category is populated when the template is placed on a page. This morning when I started the review, there were ~260 entries in the category. Here’s some of things I found:
 * First, clearly more than half the entries were on talk pages, which is contrary to the template instructions.  These notices should have been on the article page.
 * I’ve started a request on the template’s talk page to add a warning to prevent adding the movenotice to a talk page.
 * Many of the movenotices on article pages had not been removed when an associated RM was closed
 * I started a discussion at WP:RMCI to remind RM closers to remove movenotices when they close the RM
 * Many movenotices reflected dated, unresolved discussions (as early as 2006).
 * Even of those movenotices with extensive discussion, many remained unresolved, ie. No one made a decision to either move or not move the article.
 * Many movenotices had no associated discussion or rationale on the talk page.
 * Not all RM discussions had a corresponding movenotice on the article page

Issues and questions
These are just some issues and questions we need to consider as we think about clarifying title policy and process.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since many movenotices result in little discussion and no resolution, should the movenotice template be limited to instances where there is a corresponding RM discussion?
 * If not, how does the community want to identify, resolve and execute if necessary moves that are suggested only with the movenotice template. As of now, an editor can place a move notice template on an article, start a discussion on the talk page, and (I guess) there is some expectation that the community will ACT in some way on the request.  Since there is very limited visibility of the request (proposed move category only) action is unlikely.
 * How long should a movenotice without an associated RM remain on an article? The great majority of movenotices without RMs are months old without any decision or discussion.
 * Should movenotices that provide no rationale be removed?
 * Should movenotices improperly placed on the talk page be summarily moved to the article page?


 * I have altered the section heading because it is difficult to link to sections with in the section heading.


 * Move notice is a relatively new template (or at least its more common usage is). I think its usage should be depreciated. It is an editor to editor message and such messages should be on the talk page. We had requested moves for years without and advertising it in article space, and advertising it on the talk page and at RM is sufficient. -- PBS (talk)


 * Question: why are we discussing the proper procedure for using the movetitle template here on this policy page? Wouldn't the proper place to discuss the procedural details of using a template be at the template's talk page? This talk page should be focused on discussing the text of the AT policy.  Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I raised the issue here because it is directly tangential to the RM RFC above which has at its core the role of RM and the visibility of consensus based title changes. This isn't so much about the template per se, but more about the whole title change process. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "directly tangential"... isn't that a bit oxymoronic? I guess my problem is that I still don't understand why we are talking about process in the first place.  What matters from a policy standpoint is simple... title changes are based on consensus.  We don't need to discuss the various processes for achieving consensus.   HOW we achieve consensus on a title change is not important... the only thing that is important is THAT we achieve consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * HOW we achieve consensus on a title change is not important... the only thing that is important is THAT we achieve consensus. A bit naive I think. Achieving consensus on title changes is indisputable and good policy.  The current wording in WP:AT makes that clear (so why do we need to change it?).  However, this RfC is all about the processes by which such consensus is achieved, not about whether title changes should be consensus/policy based.  So, if we change the policy based on the premise of this RfC-that there's processes other than RM to make consensus based title changes, shouldn't we at least be cognizant of the implications of such a change? I'd much rather be discussing the implications and ramifications of a policy change if is made, rather than always rehashing what we all already agree on--title changes should be consensus/policy based. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So how does a discussion of where to put a notice template help us to assess the implications and ramifications of the proposed change? I don't see how it is relevant?  Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a new topic. Neotarf (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I find this pretty interesting, even if RL considerations don't give me the time to consider it in depth right now. I have never understood the relationship between the templates, the bots, and the RM listings. Shouldn't the process itself be invisible on the article page? And what about the bot that is broken? There has also been a proposal to automatically start the RM process whenever someone moving a title indicates it is potentially controversial. It seems there is some confusion about RMs outside of the people who deal with it regularly, plus the people who do use the process aren't consistent; why not have a bot do everything? Neotarf (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a new operator for the RM bot, and it appears to be working OK now. There is a policy consideration as to whether RM discussions should be advertised on the article with the template or whether it is purely an editorial matter and the template should not be placed on articles but only on affected talk pages. If there is consensus that it is desirable to advertise RM discussions with the template on affected articles, then yes I agree this function could be done by a bot, although it might be tricky to find the right triggers for the required actions and how to handle manually added notices. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you highlight the two major scenarios well. The most typical and desirable scenario that can easily be handled by a Bot, is the addition of the Movenotice to the article page when a request move is encountered on the talk page.  The result would be like Qantas Flight 1.  The second scenario is problematic, and I think should be avoided or discouraged--placing a movenotice on an article page without a corresponding RM.  This essentially leaves the move unadvertised and subject to no sure process that someone will actually consider, discuss and decide whether a move is warranted or not.  Example: Playpen, a move notice in-place since Jan 2012, no discussion, no decision.  At least if there had been an RM, some resolution would have occured.  Even if the movenotice was placed on the talk page (wasn't designed to go there), without an RM, the proposed move would potentially languish without resolution. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think both should be discouraged. If one is going to place a notice in arricle space about this specific section on the talk page, why not put notices into article space for every new section that appears on the talk page? The talk page is there for requesting editorial input and for discussing editorial changes to the article. Article page should as much as possible be about the subject of the article not the article itself. At a practical level, either an editor will have the page on their watch list (in which case both article and talk page are watched, or they will see the move at WP:RM), few experienced editors are going to come across the page in the week in which a move is being discussed, and those reader that do will not have an account of sufficient age to be able to express an opinion which would not be discounted (with possible sock accusations which is not exactly how we want to introduce Wikipedia editing to new editors). -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So you would recommend, as I think you did above, that we eliminate use of the Movenotice template on the article page (and by default on the talk page) because we already have the RM template? We'd have one less category (Proposed Moves would go away) and it would be much more efficent in the long run. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, (for those who do not know we have category:Requested moves which at best category:Proposed moves duplicates) -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Interesting that in Dec 2011, this template survived a deletion discussion. But, clearly as you state, for the most part Category:Proposed moves and Category:Requested moves contain a lot of overlap, thus bringing into question the usefulness of two separate categories.  Additionally, whether or not the movenotice remains when used in conjunction with an RM, we should find a way to eliminate its use when there is no associated RM. It just creates dead-end discussions because nobody is aware of them. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to deletion discussion is Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_28. Provided for convenience of anyone interested in the referenced discussion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the only substantive objection was that it was in use, but the work Mike has been doing has removed that objection. Because it has already been up for a delete and that is always a chancy business, I suggest that as a first step is to remove any mention of it in the RM process page and similar (I have been bold ). We can then reword the template to suggest that it sits at the top of the talk page and its code is changed so it only appears on the talk page (to do that the variable NAMESPACE is used). We remove its category (as it is a useless duplicate) and the bot can look for the template and remove it from the talk page when the other template is removed. Later if it is agreed that it is a waste of space it can either be redirected to requested move or put up for another AfT.-- PBS (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a posting to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves today see here. The page Talk:Rapid transit has a requested move section, but it is only advertised using movenotice on the article page. It is clear from the posting at talk:Requested moves that at least some in the debate expected it to appear on the WP:RM list. I think this confusion justifies depreciating movenotice. -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit of follow-up
After cleanup, there are ~80 movenotices out in the article space, ~165 RMs on talk pages, and maybe 2 movenotices on title related RfCs. It is clear that all RMs don't have movenotices on the article and that there are movenotices with no corresponding RMs. Of the movenotices without RMs, I haven't yet counnted how many are old (> 90 days) and unresolved.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have now cleaned up the rest of the movenotices in article space. There were some requests about a year old which I closed as moribund. Those newer than that which had no comment on the talk page I closed on a technical close. The others I converted into RMs of which there were 32, one of which was a multi-move of 11 pages. -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Move Notice at TFD
I've gone ahead and nominated the Movenotice template for deletion here. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)