Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 14

ANI re moving disambiguation pages
Mentioned above, but probably bears repeating: an ANI related to moving disambiguation pages is here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

new discussion closing templates
I have started using RM top and RM bottom (shortcuts rmt and rmb, respectively) to close RM discussions on talk pages. They should be used like this:
 * RESULT
 * Discussion

This will produce something like this (RM top will automatically append your signature): 
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was RESULT Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I created them by copying polltop and then adding a few elements from discussion top that I liked better. (For example, the bar separating the decision from the discussion.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the need for additional templates like this - there's already too many. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Need"? You're right, probably not. And I'm not mandating that anyone else use it.  I'm just saying that I made it for my use in closing RM discussions, and that others can use it, too.  Those who want can continue to use polltop.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page movement
Please contribute to Page movement and Wikipedia talk:Page movement. I have started this proposal as an attempt to formalize and/or get down in writing some of WP:RM custom and etiquette, as well as give an opportunity to institute some things, such as rubber staming the status of WP:RM as the device for resolution of conflict regarding page movement as well as instituting a WP:RM appeal process. It would also be good if we could consider centralizing discussions and/or formalizing the means of doing so, at least regarding mass moves proposals. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Review of Pop music close
At User:Milomedes's request, I have reviewed User:Parsecboy's close of Talk:Pop music. I found nothing wrong with it, and I think I would have closed it the same way.

A short summary of fact: There was an ongoing RfC, started by User:Sssoul at Talk:Pop music. This was not to determine the title of the article, but to determine its scope. Should it be about Popular music in general, or about the genre? A total of five editors contributed to the RfC. After three editors had commented in the RfC, User:Milomedes joined the discussion, and suggested a move to Talk:Pop music (genre). User:Sssoul agreed, and User:Milomedes made the move. No other editors had supported this move before it was made. User:Muchness objected, and reverted, in accordance with WP:BRD. Then, User:Muchness opened a procedural requested move discussion to decide the move issue separately from the RfC. Seven users contributed to the move discussion. Only five formally listed their !votes as support or oppose. That count was 3 support versus 2 oppose. User:Muchness and User:Hike395 did not place formal, bolded !votes, but from their comments it is clear that they did not favor the move.

Now, my analysis: The move discussion did not supercede the RfC, since the RfC was about determining the topic of the article, not about determining the move. The move happened through the agreement of 2 out of 5 editors in the RfC, and so cannot be said to have been supported by consensus. (If no one had objected to the move, then silence implies consensus, but that is not the case here.) Turning to the requested move discussion, if you only count the formal, bolded !votes, yes, it is a 3-2 majority in favor of a move. But that unfairly discounts the opinions of User:Muchness and User:Hike395, just because they neglected to "vote". Parsecboy accurately read the discussion, realized there was no consensus to move, and closed it that way. There was no error here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I concur with Aervanath's analysis. Good job. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, you were one of the Pop music train wrecking editors, so your opinion is hardly neutral (or correct). In fairness, it's clear that you wanted to be helpful to Pop music. I also agree with much of your stated disambiguation philosophy, though it's somewhat too black/white, inflexible, and over-centralized. It's a shame that you were unable to avoid Escalation of commitment to your initially wrong position at the Pop music RM. By only one wrong step each, each editor that might have prevented the wreck – or prevented another like it – did not.

←Aervanath, I didn't ask you to review Parsecboy's close. I'm not that dumb. When everyone can claim to have acted within the guiderules, asking for a review of Parsecboy's close is a guaranteed waste of time. I did ask for some admin who can see how unfair this RM vs. RfC outcome was, to finish the move from Pop music to Pop music (genre) over redirect. Obviously you don't think that it's unfair, so logically you weren't called on by me to do anything. I can tell you mean well, and you did make some effort to mitigate the RM-induced damage at Pop music – however ineffectual due to the perennial slow edit war there. Maybe it's useful to post both sides of a guaranteed losing appeal in a systemic bias case, if only because the audience can second guess the outcome on its merits. I, as a previously uninvolved admin, decided to investigate and see how

The Pop music wreck was arguably "no fingerprints" and no guiderule fault – yet it was a process and outcome that should not have happened. You should not have encouraged it to happen yet again, as you have here, but worse by far, you should not have enabled it to happen yet again by deleting there.

You skimmed over some critical facts, and your analysis is seriously flawed.

Sssoul renewed the Pop music RfC three times, since originally posted 25 September 2008. Three editors in three months were all that cared about the article's issues, so I gave their consensus a lot of weight. Sssoul stated the RfC issues clearly: "'1] deciding what this article is supposed to be about, and if it is indeed supposed to be about a specific genre, '2] figuring out how to keep it on the subject of that genre, despite a recurring tendency for editors to mistake it for the article on Popular music in general.'''" What was their RfC consensus for 1]? "Sssoul : '...in favour of a wikipedia article on the specific genre known as pop...'; Squeal : '...this particular article should be about the concept of pop music as a genre...'; MDCollins : '...always perceived pop music to be a genre...'." What was their RfC consensus for 2]? "Sssoul : '...i'm not sure what could be proposed to re-focus the article on the specific genre - which is why i launched this RfC...'; Squeal : '...[Pop music] giving way to the secondary definition of another concept [Popular music] that is already extensively covered in another article(s). This should not be allowed.'; MDCollins : 'A 'for other uses' tag at the top...'."

Note that Sssoul didn't know what to do (but I did), Squeal wanted some kind of firm action (I provided it), and MDCollins suggested what is technically a disambiguation hatnote (already failed, so I extended disambiguation to the title).

An existing disambiguation hatnote had already been removed during the slow edit war. Nothing less than a title move could successfully carry out the manifest consensus for disambiguation of Pop music from Popular music.

I summarized the RfC using Wikipedia terms of art, and asked for objection to a move: "There seems to be a consensus that this article is about a genre called 'pop music', and should describe a cross-cultural controversy about whether such a genre exists in the U.S., rather than just the UK. • There also seems to be consensus that the problem for this Pop music genre article is disambiguation from the cultural subject of popular music, so that editors will write here about a genre, rather than a cultural concept and its trends better described at Popular music. • In addition to a disambiguation notice at the top of the article as mentioned, is there any objection to moving the article name to Pop music (genre) ? Milo 22:32, 20 December 2008" "No other editors had supported this move before it was made." What's that suppose to imply? Isn't unanimity of the two present (of four ever) enough?? Given how long the RfC had been open, and how few editors had joined it in three months, no further comment could reasonably be expected before a move. Without objection, and with consensus, I made a move to implement the RfC. It was not a bold move, and I stated in advance exactly what I intended to do.

The first wrecking problem began, not with Muchness' WP:BRD revert, but that he did not then join the general RfC discussion. Taking him at his word, he was not certain that a problem existed. Had he joined the RfC, his plain-text misreadings of WP:Naming conventions could at least have been discussed to try to avoid a troublesome, RfC-competing, RM process. After his revert, Muchness subverted the general process RfC by opening a narrow process RM. This is not against current guiderules, but it is wrong in principle, and it should be discouraged in the future. (A narrow procedure used to subvert a general or broad procedure is a wikilawyer-like activity, whereby procedural details are used to defeat procedural principles.) As you noted, he called it a "procedural nomination". A procedural nomination is, again, not against current guiderules, but it is likewise wrong and should be discouraged. (In this context, it's the procedural equivalent of "let's you and him fight".)

"User:Muchness and User:Hike395 did not place formal, bolded !votes, but from their comments it is clear that they did not favor the move." Neither editor voted, period. You can't validate Parsecboy's contortionist close by assuming that they somehow did vote, when they plainly did not. It is in no way clear that Hike395 did not favor the actual move. He did not vote, and after both o I, as a previously uninvolved admin, decided to investigate and see how f his side issue misunderstandings were cleared up, he departed. Clearly he had misunderstood side concerns, but maybe he never did care about the move itself. Muchness specifically stated "I'm of the opinion that this move is potentially contentious." (And he continued in that vein through two more posts.) He didn't say it was contentious. Clearly he wanted to stir the pot, but that's a different issue. He suggests multiple possibilities, thus he didn't want to take a position on the actual move – so don't force one on him.

"The move discussion did not supercede the RfC, since the RfC was about determining the topic of the article, not about determining the move." That's classic wikilawyering. The RfC determined the need for article disambiguation as a principle. As explained above in bold, since a disambiguation hatnote had already failed due to the slow edit war, the only remaining method to carry out the RfC consensus was through a title move. To claim that a general procedure (RfCs can consense any issue), can be overruled by a narrow procedure (RMs can consense only moves) – is like claiming that a traffic court can fine jaywalking protesters, after the Supreme Court has declared that the right to protest is more important than minor traffic laws. If you don't understand the hierarchical importance of general principle over narrow detail, you should not further involve yourself in reviewing case judgments like here or rulecrafting as at Page_movement.

"The move happened through the agreement of 2 out of 5 editors in the RfC, and so cannot be said to have been supported by consensus." Actually 2 of 4 in the RfC, but that misses the point that the RfC unanimously and generally consensed to solve the article's ambiguity problem. A general implementation of disambiguation was supported by unanimous RfC consensus, and since there was no untried disambiguation alternative to a move, a move was also generally supported. And, of course, 50% of the RfC editors specifically supported a move.

A disambiguation title move was, and remains, an appropriate implementation of the Pop music RfC.

"unfairly discounts the opinions of User:Muchness and User:Hike395, just because they neglected to "vote"." Neglected to vote? You can't know that for sure. I'm one of many editors who has only commented in a vote-polled venue, to avoid taking heat from one side or the other. Since you are unaccountably waffling on majority voting, note that both editors stated plain-text misunderstandings about material facts. For the so-called "good answer" consensus, polled votes expressing frank misunderstandings of material facts are supposed to be ignored. Either way, these two non-voters don't affect consensus outcome in the Pop music RM.

As bad as everything above was, this situation got even worse. Aervanath, obviously meaning well and even attempting to help, has nonetheless become the fifth and hopefully final Pop music train wrecker. Since all of the previous wrecking editors can claim to have acted within the guiderules, but the outcome was bad (i.e., the slow edit war continues due to unchecked title ambiguity, a subverted RfC, and a questionable close), then the guiderules need changing. Accordingly, at the proposed guide Page_movement, I wrote two sections that might have prevented a recurrence of this Pop music wreck: #Avoid seeking out controversies and #Cooperate with article RfCs. These are intended to be uncontroversially in accord with ideas well-established elsewhere for progressing the Wikipedia project. Considering I've felt forced to defend at considerable length in four venues, what one or two years ago would have been an obvious and routine title disambiguation – it's an irony that Aervanath casually deleted two thoughtful, harmonious, and well-crafted guiderules in their entirety – as "not necessary". Milo 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the issue is, Milo. A significant part of the reason why I closed the move as "No consensus" was because there is an ongoing RfC that covers the issue of page moving (which seems to be your main objection to how I closed the move). Essentially, I closed the requested move so that the RfC would continue to have precedence. A quick message on my talk page from you would've gotten you that answer 2 weeks ago, and we could have avoided this discussion here. Also, there simply wasn't a strong consensus to move the page; of the 5 who "voted", 2 opposed it, and although they did not specifically vote, Muchness and Hike were not in favor of it either. You must remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; while voting can be an effective way to determine consensus, opinions expressed without a Support/Oppose in front of them are just as valid in determining consensus as those that do.
 * As an aside, I'm not entirely enthralled with your attitude with any of this. Your calling people who have acted in good faith "wrecking editors" surely isn't going to win any hearts and minds, nor are hostile-sounding remarks like "Were redirects developed after you learned the basics at WP?" Like I said above, you really should have asked me first about how and why I closed the proposal the way I did (not because I'm self-important, but because I'm a rational person, and if presented with evidence that I made a mistake, I'm very willing to reverse a decision if it was in error). Also, if you feel "forced to defend", then perhaps you need to back away from this issue, as you've clearly made it personal. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a bit, and stop taking things so personally. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Parsecboy's last statement. While obviously you are determined to totally discount the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you, the fact that you have had to "defend at considerable length in four venues" should be a huge wake-up call that your opinions are not as obviously correct to the community as a whole as you seem to think.  You have continuously approached this as a call to arms over an obvious wrong, yet you are continually rebuffed.  I entered this as a neutral party, because you did request a review of the decision, although you phrased it as a request for an overturn of the decision.  "I did ask for some admin who can see how unfair this RM vs. RfC outcome was, to finish the move from Pop music to Pop music (genre) over redirect. Obviously you don't think that it's unfair, so logically you weren't called on by me to do anything."  I think it is disingenuous to call for an admin to effectively overturn another admin's decision without a thorough review of that decision.  By your extensive reply above, you are implying that because I disagree with you, I should not have said anything.  If you continue with that approach, you are not going to fare very well on Wikipedia, where Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a widely accepted guideline.  Yes, I do feel that a majority can indicate consensus, but not necessarily.  I'm sorry if this seems like "waffling" to you, but this is widely accepted opinion on Wikipedia.  Furthermore, even taking your interpretation of the "vote" into account, 3-2 is not an overwhelming majority.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma people to Roma (people)
Could do with some outside advice from uninvolved editors simply on the technicalities. First some background :

The current Article Romani people was previously titled Roma people. Following an RM it was moved to present title. The name 'Roma people' was recently revived to indicate 'Roma' as a subset of 'Romani people'. It was tagged as a Dab, but has since begun to expand as an Article (while retaining its Dab template). Currently, Google searches for 'Roma' are directing to this minor site, rather than the more extensive 'Romani people' site. If the preceding doesn't make a lot of sense, just ask and I'll try to clarify. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem started at this edit, correct? Would you be okay with restoring it to being a disambiguation page as it was prior to that edit (and as it is still tagged as one)?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that most editors prefer Roma (people) to do mainly with issues of English grammar, so that doesn't address the core problem. Just to be frank, I myself proposed this RM and it has had general support. The difficulty is that the nature of the page is morphing from a Dab to a combination of Dab and Article even while this RM is taking place. Whether the former or latter is the final content, 'Roma people' has little appeal as an article title or as a Dab and is presently misdirecting Google. RashersTierney (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question directly, I would be OK with that position, at least 'till the RM is complete. At that stage a debate could occur to change from a dab to an article. I know some editors will not be pleased but I think the current dual situation is untenable. Is that unreasonable? RashersTierney (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So your primary concern right now is that Roma people be a redirect to Romani people? I mean, if the article (or dab page - whatever it is) currently at Roma people is renamed to Roma (people), but Roma people remains a redirect to Roma (people), Google will still be misdirected.  So are you seeking to make Roma people be a redirect to Romani people?


 * In other words, can an argument be made that the primary usage of "Roma people" is the topic of the article at Romani people? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Such an argument could be made but it would be hotly contested. RashersTierney (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My primary concern was that for a number of reasons, 'Roma people' is an ambiguous and grammatically questionable construction, unsuitable for the previous article that had it as a title (for a period) and no more suitable for the two possible pages that may claim it (Dab and developing article). Some editors wish to commence an article on 'the Roma' (most though not all accept 'the Roma'/Roma people to be a subset of the overarching term 'Romani people'), which will need a name, and some would like that name to be 'Roma (people)'. Some think there should not be such a separate article and this subset should be confined to the 'Romani people' article. I suppose after a difficult revert to have the 'Romani people' article back at 'Romani people' (having been changed without discussion), my nerves are a little raw on this subject. Seeing the monster rise again after all the hard work burying it, including a stout stake through the heart, was a bit ill considered IMO. RashersTierney (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The future article is germinating around the topic of, which now redirects to a section in Romani people. So how about helping to expand that topic into an article? Merge the pieces of content from Roma people and that section in Romani people. If the page name is unambiguous and NPOV, accept it. The page name Roma people is spoken for, by a dab page, and anyone who finds the non-dab content there is free to move it. So to keep the peace, I would make the new article sooner than later, at the redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably had too much wine for dinner, but what does "make the article at the redirect" mean? How do you make an article at a redirect (unless you're converting the redirect into an article - is that what you mean?) and what redirect are you talking about?  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle is moving pages around again, this time while a perfectly reasonable, civil discussion about the move is underway. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy reverts of bold moves
I added a slightly modified/clarified version of what we achieved consensus on to the main page:


 * This section is for people to request straightforward reverts of bold page moves (moved without discussion, or with discussion but without achieving consensus), to restore a stable/established name, in accordance with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It is intended for use by non-administrators when the desired revert can only be performed by an administrator.


 * Only straightforward reverts should be requested here. Requests will be declined if the reverts requested are not straightforward; for example, if the move to be reverted is very old, or if the requested revert name is not an established/stable name for the article in question.
 * If a speedy revert request is declined here, you are free to propose a move in the "Other proposals" section below, following the instructions above.
 * Do not repost declined requests here.
 * If a speedy revert is executed, the original move request may be proposed via the normal "Other proposals" process.

It was immediately reverted, apparently by someone who was not following the above discussion and claimed it was "unnecessary" and "redundant". I've restored it. Let's give it a try and see if it proves to be useful. I'll be happy to whack it myself if it indeed proves to be unnecessary and redundant during say, a month-long trial period. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) JPG-GR reverted it again with the comment "not enough discussion has taken place to insert a whole new section - take it to the talk page". Uh, the discussion has ongoing here on the talk page since at least December 22, almost a month ago. We finally reached consensus and I'm just implementing what was agreed on. What else is there to talk about? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not formed by a discussion comprised of 6 editors discussing on this mess of a talk page. If a page is moved without discussion, move it back and then take it to the appropriate section of WP:RM. If it can't be moved back, take it to WP:RM and actually clearly state that it was moved without discussion. There is no reason that I can see for an additional section to be added to WP:RM to make this page any less navigable. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Perhaps the reason you can see no reason for an additional section for this purpose is because you have chosen not to participate in the discussion until now.  Do we really have to start all over and explain the reasoning for you as we did for others, or would you be kind enough to read what has already been written?  Perhaps we missed something and you need to explain it to us.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is a talk page with a bunch of sections discussing the same thing at the same time. What I see is approximately 6 editors discussing these things, trying to change how WP:RM works and complaining about naming conventions (wide generalization). What I see is instruction creep and an attempt to treat every move request as one rather than judging each on its own merits. So, yes, I did miss something that I would like explained - the reason we need this extra section in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hell, I don't even see a consensus among the discussion above. I see a proposal to add this section, a couple people objecting to it, and then your decision to add it anyway. JPG-GR (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does need more discussion. However, while Born2cycle may be jumping the gun a little, I do think there needs to be something here to explicitly say that undiscussed moves that need to be reverted by an administrator can be requested as an uncontroversial move.  This does not actually require a huge change.  JPG-GR, what do you think is the best way to make this clear to novice editors?--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Currently, I would think any revert request would be rejected from "Uncontroversial moves" because reverts are inherently controversial.  So to allow them to be proposed there the scope (and title) of that section needs to change.  See below. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * JPG-GR, please read further. A key objector to my original proposal was Hesperian.  He himself came up with the section I essentially just added.


 * In a nutshell, the problem is that under the current system (what you outline in your comment) people who make potentially controversial moves that for technical reasons cannot be reverted by a non-admin have an unfair advantage. They put the onus on those who favor the stable state, when the onus should be on those who favor a change from the stable state.  By "the onus" I mean having to go through the WP:RM "Other proposals" process, including having to state the case for reverting, creating the discussion, adding the tags, etc.  We can't eliminate that advantage, but we want to reduce it, and that's what this new section attempts to do.  In short, it makes it less of a hassle to revert an inappropriate move that should have gone through WP:RM in the first place.


 * However, your point about additional sections making this page less nagivable is well taken, and is a new one. Perhaps I was jumping the gun a little.  With that in mind, another way to do it that we haven't discussed is to expand the scope of "Uncontroversial moves" to include "Straightforward reverts".  Would you be open to that?  At least it wouldn't add a new section, and it would probably make a currently lightly used section more useful.  Better?  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I think a revert request (whatever you want to be called it) can be elaborated on in the main section (elaborated within reason - this page already suffers from the "read this encyclopedia about how to move an article on this encyclopedia" problem). I'd recommend against automatically adding that it to the "uncontroversial" section as, barring vandalism, the fact that this undiscussed move/revert is taking place likely makes it controversial. HOWEVER, I still think there is no "unfair advantage" of going through the process. If you want to take the time to get it moved back, it's obviously not a waste of your time. If the page doesn't get reverted, there was obviously a lack of consensus. You (not a specific person, just the position I'm "debating" for a lack of a better term) think a change needs to be done at WP:RM - I think closing admins just need to take a closer look at the situation and if the result is no consensus but the old title was stable for a considerable period of time, revert due to undiscussed moved. JPG-GR (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, my apologies in advance for getting going on this and then taking off, but I've been up for 21 hours and I expect any further discussion from me this evening will be incoherent. JPG-GR (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no "unfair advantage", which makes this proposed additional procedure unnecessary and a waste of time. --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There absolutely is an unfair advantage to making an undiscussed move, and then quickly editing the redirect so it can't be easily moved back. Your denying it won't change that, and further, you need to stop doing it. That practice has to be stopped in general, and the page needs clarification so that we are using B-R-D, not B-D (fail). JPG-GR, please propose an alternative wording that meets your approval. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also must disagree with JPG-GR (who I otherwise respect quite highly, as he's very experienced with the RM scene). The burden should be on those proposing a move to initiate the discussion and gain consensus for a move, not those objecting to it.  We should be making RM conform to WP:BRD, not creating an RM-specific Bold-Discuss-Revert rule.  While this has been the established practice at RM, and I initially opposed the "speedy revert" process for that reason, I think this is causing us to be out of step with the larger Wikipedia community.  In fact, the Arbitration Committee specifically mandated that we have this sort of speedy revert process in 2006, see Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK.  Apparently, either this was never set up or it fell out of practice again.
 * Lar, above you seem to be accusing Una Smith of moving pages and then purposely editing the redirect to prevent an easy move back, which is precisely the behavior that AndriyK was sanctioned for. Could you provide evidence of this?  If Una is in fact doing this in bad faith, this needs to stop at once.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I too think Lar is accusing me, and I await Lar's evidence for his accusations against me. --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AndriyK was sanctioned for making trivial edits to redirects, which were clearly solely for the purpose of preventing a revert. Such redirects are easily dealt with using db-move.  But editing a redirect can be legitimate if the original move was, e.g. moving Foo to Foo (bar) and then turning Foo into a disambiguation page.  But it does make the original move non-revertable by non-admins, and no admin would delete a dab page via db-move.  If the original move was controversial, the edit pre-empts discussion, so it's essential that RM deal with such cases fairly.  Kanguole (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replacing a redirect with a disambiguation page does prevent non-admins from reverting a page move, but does not pre-empt discussion. Nor does it give anyone an "unfair advantage";  page moves are to be judged on their merits, not on who did what first.  To me, "no consensus for move" means that, judged on its merits, the page move is a wash, neither good nor bad.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you agreeing that in such a situation, if the discussion does not reach consensus the move should be undone? Kanguole (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. That would violate a key principle of adminship:  when in doubt, do nothing.   --Una Smith (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say whether Una Smith was acting in bad faith, but the user's page move history includes multiple instances of moving pages and then rapidly editing the redirect. For example, see:
 * A Streetcar Named Desire (film) page history
 * Rosewood page history
 * There have been no page moves since 4 January, leading me to hope that Una Smith now understands why this behavior is problematic. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This behavior is not problematic and I have not moved pages in the past few days only because I have been busy with other things. --Una Smith (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the A Streetcar Named Desire (film) history, it seems to me that Una is acting in good faith; it's perfectly fine to move a page and then point the resulting redirect to a dab page, which is what was done for that article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy, thank you. I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia disambiguating incoming links and when I find an ambiguous page name and significant disambiguation is necessary, I put a disambiguation page at the ambiguous page name or I make other edits that have the same constructive effect.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That allays my concerns.--Aervanath talks like a mover</b>, but not a shaker 06:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was recently the victim of one of these 'bold reverts' and found it uncivil and arrogant. A consensus to move Battle of the Strait of Otranto to Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940) had been developed on the article's talk page with all three editors involved in the article supporting the move (for the very good reason that there was a notable Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)). However, shortly after I made this move (which was hardly 'bold' as it had been discussed over several days and had consensus support) User:Born2cycle reverted it on the grounds that they thought that we had misinterpreted the relevant guidelines. Over-riding a clear consensus like this without even bothering to take part in the discussion first is highly undesirable practice for editors to engage in as it appears to rest on an arrogant assumption that the reverting editor has a better understanding of guidelines than all the other editors involved in the discussion. This is particularly the case as both WP:D and WP:PRECISION are guidelines, not policies, and editors have the option of ignoring them if they're judged to not make sense in individual cases, as was clearly the case here. If this is a trial, I'd rate it as a fail and strongly suggest that it be abandoned now. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle tried this also at Talk:Lepidogalaxias salamandroides. --Una Smith (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle is being a little too general in his interpretation of what WP:BRD is for. It is ok to revert an undiscussed move.  The Battle of the Strait of Otranto had been discussed and agreed to by three editors with no objections, so this clearly does not constitute an undiscussed move.  This is a pretty clear-cut case where it should not have been reverted.  The Talk:Lepidogalaxias salamandroides situation is a little more complex.  The original move there was undiscussed, which resulted in a short move war before a discussion started.  However, again, a discussion was in progress, so it seemed inappropriate to move the page back.  Either way, I think Born2cycle should stop reverting these moves on his own, and start posting them to the "Uncontroversial moves" section on WP:RM until he gets a better feel for when it is or is not proper to revert them.  No matter what the outcome of this discussion is, there are going to be times when, even though there was an undiscussed move, it should not be reverted, and I think Born2cycle has shown that he doesn't yet understand when those times are.  He should leave it up to more experienced RM regulars until he's gained that understanding.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 06:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, though it's important to note that WP:BRD is only an essay, and no-one should rely on it to get them out of trouble if they're incautious. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I just thought that the "consensus" at Battle of the Strait of Otranto was formed from a very limited audience that did not consider WP:D and WP:PRECISION in their decision, and that they should go through WP:RM. I don't see how putting a request under Uncontroversial Moves (in its current state anyway) would be appropriate, since the revert I would propose would be  inherently controversial (just like any revert).  I could have put the request under "Other proposals" and gone through the whole WP:RM process, but that puts the onus on me (the one favoring to keep the article at the stable name, at least for now) to do all that work, rather than on those who favor the move.  By simply reverting, that puts the onus on them, where it should be.  Or, even better, it puts the onus on them to first create the article on the 1917 battle, and then disambiguate this one accordingly, a move I would not dispute.  In fact, that's how it has turned out.  Isn't that a good thing?  Isn't that how things are supposed to evolve on Wikpedia?


 * In principle, how is my revert at Battle of the Strait of Otranto any different from JPG-GR's revert of my adding the section to WP:RM we've been discussing for weeks and for which we achieved consensus?  I didn't accuse JPG-GR of being uncivil for doing that. Regardless of which side I'm on in a given dispute, I recognize that the onus is on those who favor the change from the stable state.  That's the fundamental point.  I believe my actions have been consistent with this.  If anyone still thinks my actions have been inappropriate, I would like to understand why.  Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle, Battle of the Strait of Otranto was moved to make way for a disambiguation page after discussion among the involved parties. Per that discussion, the move was uncontroversial.  Therefore, due process requires at most listing the move on WP:RM in the section devoted to uncontroversial moves.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Una, if there was any mention of moving the page to a dab page I would not have reverted anything. There wasn't.  It wasn't even implied. When I got to that page this is all that was there.  No mention of even creating a page for the other (1917) battle, much less talk of creating a dab page.  The only reason for the move cited was, "to remove confusion with 'Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)',", a topic for which there was at that time (and still, I believe) no article in Wikipedia, and no mention that there would be one.


 * Again, for those of you who think my revert was improper, please explain. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2c, you need to accept that a consensus formed in your absense is still a consensus. This issue has cropped up numerous times now. You seem to think that, just because you didn't know about a discussion or convention, you can declare that there was no consensus for it, on the grounds that if you had known you would have kicked up a stink. That's not how it works. I grant that there is a strange logic to your position, but the fact remains that you are the only person around here who defines consensus in this way; and ultimately, we define and apply the word consensus according to the consensus definition.
 * There was consensus for that move; so it was moved. If you come in late and decide you disagree, then your presence has shifted the consensus after the move, and the onus is on you to seek a new consensus.
 * And for the record, you are absolutely right: all of this applies to JPG-GR's revert too.
 * Hesperian 07:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also for the record, I was here and I missed where B2c's proposal achieved the purported consensus, so I approve of JPG-GR's reverts of B2c's additions to WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B2c, please stop and think more, and assume less. What were those editors doing?  Rather than ask, or wait and see, you jumped on them.  Of course they were preparing to disambiguate, and they began by vacating the ambiguous base name.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It's worth noting that all the editors involved in the article are highly active and we've created hundreds of military history articles between us. I think that B2c was well intentioned, but this appears to be fairly close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point which, of course, can lead to blocks and other restrictions. B2c; if you think other editors are wrong try to discuss this with them first before doing anything, especially in articles which you have had no prior involvement. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that in their posts today B2c appears to have been inconsistent in their view on whether moves need to go through WP:RM - on my talk page they've posted "Most page moves should go through the WP:RM process" on the article page they first posted "the process requires giving notice at all affected talk pages as well as the "broadcast" at WP:RM" and when I challenged this "I know there is no requirement to list at WP:RM" and above they've posted an argument which basically boils down to a listing at WP:RM being critical to any moves. This suggests to me that they need to study this guideline more closely as it clearly states that "discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry" even when the move is contested and that editors can perform uncontroversial moves themselves without any prior discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, yes, it would have been better to find out if anyone was planning on creating the 1917 article first, but, frankly, since there was no mention of anyone doing that at all, it didn't even occur to me. It looked to me like people thinking it's appropriate to disambiguate from a topic not covered in Wikipedia.  At any rate, while seeking clarification would have been better, I still don't see the problem with doing the revert.  I don't think I violated any guidelines, conventions or policy in doing so, or even the spirit of any of those.  I suppose this is just an illustration of whether revert is a normal, acceptable thing to do in Wikipedia, or not.  I mean, we have rule against three reverts per day, not one revert.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the new Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917) article was not created or even edited by any of the three who initially agreed that Battle of the Strait of Otranto should be disambiguated to [[Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940) due to potential confusion with the 1917 battle, further supporting my assumption that there was no intent, at least nothing imminent, to create such an article, at the time I looked at the situation and decided to revert that move.


 * Maybe I've worked too much with databases and think too much in terms of clean "transactions", but it just seems logical to me that A should not be moved to A (x) to disambiguate from A (y) before A (y) exists (and even then only if neither is primary usage), and if it is renamed prematurely it should be "rolled back" (reverted) until the complete transaction -- A → A (x) and A becomes a dab page referring to A (x) and A (y) -- can be fully executed, which can only happen after A (y) exists.  Otherwise,  we leave Wikipedia in an unnecessary state of incomplete transition.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The editors involved didn't have a chance; Parsecboy wrote the missing article himself, almost 10KB of it.  B2c, please give it a rest.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Una, you give it a rest. You were out of line to tell me to think more and assume less.  Perhaps they didn't have a chance, or perhaps they didn't have any intent to create the article.  If anything, you're implying now I should have assumed more: that I should have assumed that they were going to create the other article, despite none of them providing any indication that they were going to do that.  My point stands: nothing they wrote indicated they had any intention whatsoever of creating the article, but they wanted to dab the existing article never-the-less.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Status quo ante
Lar has expressed the opinion that "if a move is controversial, the status quo ante should hold", and I expect Born2cycle would agree. But should it hold? It seems to me that such a policy would give permanent control of page moves to anyone who likes the status quo. It would support ownership. It would do away with any need for WP:RM and discussion, too, wouldn't it? Anyone who objects and can point to an edit history resembling some manner of status quo could just call on a like-minded admin (such as Lar) and say "I object, ergo this is controversial; revert it". An admin could revert any such move unilaterally, just as Born2cycle has been doing wherever admin tools are not needed.

Lar also says "you pulled a fast one", apparently referring to my moving Weymouth to Weymouth, Dorset. That has been discussed on Talk:Weymouth and Talk:Weymouth, Dorset, where Lar dismisses my work disambiguating incoming links to Weymouth as "a lot of busywork" and tells me I should be "seeking consensus for things BEFORE you do them". I am finding this rather hard to take, being told in effect to ask others for permission.

Lar and Born2cycle have shown me what "status quo ante should hold" amounts to, and I am opposed to it. --Una Smith (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. WP:RM is a pretty logical process as it stands. Few moves are controversial and only a small minority editors ever visit this page so it doesn't really work as a 'noticeboard', and discussions about moves are almost always best left to editors working on the article in the first instance. If they can't reach consensus or think that it would be beneficial to seek external views then this page is a way of attempting to attract attention. If that doesn't work there are perfectly good other means of seeking assistance already in place such as RfCs, mediation, admin involvement against disruptive editors [if that's a problem - there can be perfectly civil but long-running disputes] and, if worst comes to the worst, ArbCom, and these resolve disputes over article names on a routine basis. The eventual solution is sometimes to the displeasure of the editor or editors who feel most strongly about the article's name, but that's the way it goes - 'consensus' doesn't mean universal endorsement and an assumption of good faith doesn't mean that all editors are rational. What's being proposed is a radical change to existing procedures, and would require much wider notification than just this talk page to be adopted. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that during this extended discussion the RM procedure changed on this point. The new reasoning is that used in Talk:Lobbying on Israel in the United Kingdom.  That addresses my concerns, except that the text on WP:RM ought to be updated to reflect the change.


 * The injunction to seek prior consensus for potentially controversial moves is not new; it has been on the RM page and WP:NC for over two years. Kanguole (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that one can move a page assuming that there is no controversy involved, and assuming good faith one must assume that was the motive of the person who made the move. Page has been moved and then there is a dispute over the new name. I think it would be a good idea if it was stated that if a requested move is a controversial move, then it is at the discretion of the closing administrator to decide what the last stable name was and whether there is a consensus for a move to the new name. This would be exactly the same as if no move had been made before the WP:RM and will stop the temptation to move war to capture the high ground before a WP:RM request is made. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to have opened a big bag or overly entangled worms here. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that there is no single, clear-cut, bright-line rule that will cover all situations.  Sometimes the article should be immediately reverted, sometimes it should be reverted after discussion, sometimes it should not be reverted at all.  The one guideline that I can see running through most of the discussion here seems to be "If it's under discussion, don't revert until discussion dies down."  However, there are going to be some situations where this doesn't apply.  So we seem to be left where we started, since no real consensus seems to be developing as to what is going on. I wonder if a straw poll on the subject wouldn't be a helpful way to see where everyone stands, but I'm afraid that would make things even more divisive.  However, what it might do is illustrate whether consensus is possible or not.  I would not take the results of the straw poll on this topic as conclusive of consensus, unless the results are overwhelming, but it might serve to simplify the debate and give us a new starting point for discussion towards consensus. Thoughts?--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A key point for me is that WP:BRD is not the ideal, and the most problematic part of WP:BRD is the revert. I am opposed to policies, guidelines, essays, and instructions that encourage or institutionalize reverting outside the context of dealing with vandalism.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting because all BRD does is reflect the reality that while reverts are often used to combat vandalism, outside of the context of vandalism reverts are still ubiquitous in Wikipedia. Reverts are institutionalized in Wikipedia, and if that's the idea you want to fight, that's way out of scope for this page.  But, it is food for thought.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD advises the bold editor to stay calm in the face of reverts, the goal being to move beyond reverts to constructive discussion. B2c, it seems you skip past this point and instead try to use WP:BRD to justify your behaving like a "revert ninja".  And it seems you to want to institutionalize that behavior.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Una, I'm not trying to institutionalize my behavior, though it's curious that that's how you see it. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that whenever I, JPG-GR, you or anyone else does a revert back to a stable state, that's consistent with institutionalized behavior at Wikpedia.  I certainly agree that BRD is about getting beyond revert wars, but the distinction you do not fully seem to appreciate is between reverts in general, and, when there are objections to a given change, reverts back to a stable previous-consensus state (and how such reverts are institutionalized here). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think it's too early for a strawpoll. For one thing, I think I must be missing something.   But here's my thinking; let me know where I went wrong.


 * The notion that "If it's under discussion, don't revert until discussion dies down." seems to totally contradict the whole point of WP:BRD.  The whole point of the BRD cycle is that the cycle doesn't even start until the bold action in question is taken.  Just because a change is discussed on a talk page before the change is made, and even if consensus is achieved among those who happen to be watching the page and choose to participate, does not mean the change made in accordance with that consensus is not bold.  WP:BRD explains that a key to achieving consensus is identifying the "Most Interested Persons", and working on getting agreement with each one individually.  But often you can't even identify these "Most Interested Persons" until the change in question is made (for example, JPG-GR did not identify himself as a MIP on this issue until  I implemented Hesperian's compromise in the article itself), and the way they identify themselves is by reverting the change.


 * In the case of a page move for which admin assistance is not required for technical reasons, one can make the move unilaterally, or one can "test the waters" by noting it on the talk page. But just as is the case for any content edit, the only way to find out if there really is consensus for a given change is to make the change and "wait until someone reverts" [1].  That's what WP:BRD says, and for good reason.  The only exception to that, so far as I know, is a page move that goes through the WP:RM process.  Content edits don't have that exception at all, and are always subject to revert.  I don't see why page moves (that don't go through WP:RM) should be exempt from being reverted in the same way that any ordinary article content edit is.   Can anyone explain to me why they should be?


 * All I'm suggesting is that when an MIP wants to revert, and would revert if a technicality did not prevent him or her from doing so, there should be a mechanism to request for speedy admin help in that case without first having to achieve consensus to do the revert. After all, if the change in question was an ordinary content edit, or the revert did not require admin assistance, developing consensus for the revert would not be required by any convention, guideline or policy.  Why should developing consensus for a given revert be required just because technical reasons prevent doing the revert without admin assistance?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are page moves treated differently from content edits? Because page names are the strands that hold the wiki together, and the entry points for readers.  Page moves can impose a great cost on readers and editors, so they had better bring benefits that outweigh that cost.  That is, I think, why WP:NC and RM ask that we discuss potentially controversial moves before making them, and why flipping names back and forth is so harmful.  BRD is unsuitable for page moves: both the B and the R are disruptive.


 * Why should developing consensus for a given revert be required just because technical reasons prevent doing the revert without admin assistance? It shouldn't.  So why not do the revert before discussion?  Because deciding whether to do the revert will require judgement.  Some cases will be clear, but many will not.  Might as well discuss the move in that situation, as long as it is understood that no consensus means no consensus for the original move.  Also, if the move is good, you've saved two moves, and that is significant.  If the move was bad, you have two moves either way.  Kanguole (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your point about saving two moves, but I don't think it's significant compared to the points I'm about to raise, especially considering many of these moves are fresh, and the affected links and references have not been updated yet, and so reverting actually usually brings it back to a more cohesive state.


 * You agree developing consensus for a given revert should not be required just because technical reasons prevent doing the revert without admin assistance. Good.  But you still think there should be no revert before discussion because "deciding whether to do the revert will require judgement".  Does it require more or different judgment depending on whether technical reasons prevents the objector to do the revert?  Wikipedia already gives the objector the ability to use his judgment on whether to do the revert in the case where technical assistance is not required, why not give the same objector the same ability in the cases where technical assistance is required?


 * You say, "might as well discuss the move in that situation, as long as it is understood that no consensus means no consensus for the original move". The implication is that you believe the outcome is likely to be the same whether the  page is reverted or not, as long "no consensus means no consensus for the original move".  If so, I disagree, and would like to know what you think of the following explanation.


 * Say there is bold move of OldName → NewName, and someone objects. That person -- the objector -- has the option to revert and then discuss, or start a discussion without the revert.  Right?


 * In the no-revert case the objector must achieve consensus to revert (or at least show there is no consensus to sustain the move). In the revert case those who support the move to NewName must achieve consensus to support that move.  It's a completely different situation.  It is true that either way there will be a discussion, and no discussion will mean OldName wins, but a discussion about whether to move OldName → NewName is not the same as a discussion about whether to revert NewName → OldName and the likelihoods of the three possible outcomes (consensus in favor of OldName, in favor of NewName, or no consensus) are probably not the same in most cases.


 * In general, in any discussion about X → Y, do you agree those in favor of leaving the article at X have an advantage? The average objective person who arrives will need to see a reason to support the move to Y in order to favor the move to Y.  If the average objective person was just as likely to favor X or Y, I would agree with your point.  But I believe that X has the distinct advantage, all other factors held equal.  I mean, perhaps some people look at a X → Y proposal in terms of whether the article is better off at X or Y, but many look at it as whether there is good reason to move the article from X to Y, and practically no one looks at it terms of whether there any reason to not move it.  At least I can't recall anyone ever expressing their opinion about any move in such terms.  That's why those in favor of leaving the article at whatever location the article is at during the discussion, have a clear advantage over those who seek to move it to something else.


 * So in the NewName → OldName case, where the objector did not revert to OldName, the average objective person who arrives is inclined to favor "leaving" the article at NewName, unless he finds the argument to move back to OldName to be compelling. In contrast, if the objecter did revert, then the discussion is about OldName → NewName, and the same average objective person who arrives is now inclined to leave the article at OldName, unless he finds the argument to   NewName to be compelling.


 * So with a significant number of average objective persons arriving, even though the outcome is the same (OldName) if there is no consensus, the likelihood of achieving consensus in favor of NewName is different depending on whether the discussion occurs with the article at NewName and is about whether to move it back to OldName, or whether it occurs after the article is reverted to OldName, and the discussion is about whether to move it to NewName.


 * All other factors held equal, do you agree that no revert to OldName and consensus in favor of leaving the article at NewName is significantly more likely to occur than is revert to OldName and consensus in favor of moving the article to NewName?  Thus the likelihood of no consensus during discussion, or consensus in favor of one name or the other, depends on which move between the two names is being considered.


 * Why would we want to disfavor the stable consensus name like that, especially only in the case where the objector cannot revert simply due to a technicality, even though in his or her judgment the revert is appropriate and would be done if technically possible? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aervanath, it seems there's a range of views of reverts. Let's take a step back.  On Dec 31, the following was added to the Moving guidelines for administrators:
 * However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even.
 * That sounds good to me (ignoring a little awkwardness of phrasing). Some may feel that it's not enough, but do we all agree that it's reasonable?  Kanguole (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable, and certainly a step in the right direction, though does not go far enough because it still allows the discussion to proceed with the article at the new name, and thus disfavors the stable default name, per my explanation above. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it conflates two conditions, bad move and controversial move. A bad move should be moved back.  I think those are usually fairly straightforward.  A controversial move is an entirely different matter, and I do not agree that it is good to move them back.  Too often, the "controversial" nature of the move has little to do with merits either way, and a lot to do with ownership.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, and it's going to be up to the RM admin to use careful judgment to discern the difference between the two; it's not always obvious. For the record, I have no objection to the language that was added to WP:Moving guidelines for administrators, as it seems to be what RM admins have been doing here anyway, even before I became one of them.  I think what I'm objecting to is any bright-line rule that says "Automatic revert!"  Yes, WP:BRD is widely accepted (and I previously relied on it in my objection to this, before I thought about it some more and changed my mind), but it doesn't mean that the revert is mandatory, it just means that it's ok if you object to an undiscussed move, and is a normal part of the standard consensus-building process.  I think maybe the key the element here is simply diplomacy.  We've been looking at this through the simple lens of: BRD or BDR, black-or-white, 0 or 1.  But there is a middle road, involving a brief discussion before the revert.  I know that this has been referred to above as BDRD, and therefore wasteful, but I'll take Talk:Battle_of_the_Strait_of_Otranto_(1940), as an example.  3 editors had discussed and agreed to a move.  Born2cycle, a previously uninvolved editor, saw the move, disagreed with it, and reverted, explaining his reasons on the talk page.  I think that one small change here would have alleviated the bad feelings that developed because of this: if Born2cycle had come along and said: "I disagree with this move because of reasons A, B and C, which are based in policy.  Unless these concerns can be addressed, I'm going to move this back."  This then gives the moving editors a chance to either a) be convinced by the arguments and agree to move it back, b) attempt to alleviate the concerns created by the move or c) attempt to justify the move with policy-based arguments.  (You'll note that there has not been a request at WP:RM yet.)  If possibility (a) occurs, there is no problem.  For possibilities (b) and (c), if the objecting editor is not convinced by these attempts, then he can say "Sorry, I still respectfully disagree, so I'm reverting to the original name.  Please file a request at WP:RM to complete this move."  However, (b) and (c) might also result in the objecting editor becoming agreeable to the move.  In the Battle_of_the_Strait_of_Otranto_(1940) case, Born2cycle's concerns were alleviated in just over 36 hours (which is really fast, in my opinion), which means that his revert was then undone with his consent.  So, in this case, his original revert was unnecessary.  (Just to be clear: I'm not targeting Born2cycle specifically here, just using the case he was involved in as an illustrative example.)  Now, most of this debate has to do with the case where the revert needs admin assistance, which might occur with all of the possibilities I stated, (a), (b) and (c).  For me, if an editor requested a move-revert under the uncontroversial moves section, pointing me to the discussion, then yes, I would revert to allow the discussion to proceed from the status quo ante.  This also would apply, I think, even in cases of undiscussed moves.  Before requesting the revert, show me where you at least gave the original bold mover a chance to explain their actions.  If you're still not convinced, then I'll move it back for you.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem seems to be that some editors think that 'controversial bold' moves need to be reverted immediately. They do not: links to the old article name will automatically redirect to the new name and there's no time limit in which moves can be made. Giving editors 24 or 48 hours to explain their actions causes no harm at all, and is both common sense and basic civility. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if controversial bold moves need to always be reverted immediately, but bold changes should only be made when the editor believes that the change is not even potentially controversial (for example, if a couple of other editors agree to the change), and made at the risk of finding out the move in fact is controversial, and may be reverted. If the change is indeed reverted, well, that's just part of the BRD cycle, whether the change is a normal content edit, or an article move.  As I said above, it often may be preferable to post a comment and wait for a response before reverting, but going ahead with the revert should be okay too, and certainly not met with hostility, especially if the basis for the revert is clearly explained.  I'm still troubled to the strong objection to this behavior, which is fundamental to the way Wikipedia operates, for better or for worse (I believe for the better, whether I'm the reverter, or the one being reverted).  It's only three reverts in a row, certainly not just one, that should be considered a problem.


 * In this case, it should be noted that not only was the dispute at Battle of the Strait of Otranto quickly resolved after the revert, the reverter (yours truly) was the one who made the ultimate move [1] and created the dab page [2] (BTW, kudos to Una for the cleanups). Would it have been as quickly resolved without the revert?  We'll never know.  But we do know it was quickly resolved with the revert.  And, perhaps those involved will not be so eager to dab an article next time, and will wait until the topic which creates the conflict actually has an article in Wikipedia before the other page is dabbed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not confuse controversial moves (someone objects, so it should be discussed) with those where a policy-based discussion is unable to produce consensus for or against the move. The argument against making the move in the latter case is not new, and is based on stability: otherwise the article could be moved back and forth indefinitely.  What is new here is saying that the decision whether or not the page should be renamed in this case should be independent of whether the move was presented for discussion or made unilaterally.  As PBS says above, this is necessary to remove the temptation to establish the preferred state before (or during) the discussion.  Kanguole (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Any move can be controversial;  all it takes is one objection.  In terms of its merits, a move can be bad, good, or neutral.  The most controversial moves tend to have neutral merit.  The crux here is what to do about moves with neutral merit.  And the question of the moment indeed is this:  does it matter if there was prior discussion or not? --Una Smith (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c)Kanguole's right on this point. I don't think there is any disagreement that a "no consensus" outcome of a requested move discussion should revert to the last stable name in most cases, omitting those where the previous name was an obvious policy violation. The differences are cropping up over what to do about controversial moves that are made with little or no discussion.  Above, I have advocated a general process of BDRD: 1) attempt discussion with the mover; 2) if not satisfied with the reasons for the move, move back, or request admin assistance for the revert; and then 3) a formal requested move discussion can proceed from the original name.  Born2cycle is advocating a strict adherence to BRD: 1) revert any controversial move before discussion, with admins doing the revert as needed; 2) discuss from here.  There also seems to be a minority of opinion in favor of BDR: 1) let the move stay and initiate the RM request from there.  The simplest process is the last: BDR; the objection to this is that the new title has an alleged advantage in the ensuing discussion.  As I stated above, I don't agree with Born2cycle's strict BRD approach simply because it's less diplomatic; I feel that my approach ruffles fewer feathers.  I think some of the editors taking part in this discussion (naming no names) are coming at this from the angle of what is right, as opposed to what is the easiest way to obtain consensus. Yes, sometimes editors feel too much OWNership of an article, even though they shouldn't; a lot of the time they will resent the reversion, even though they shouldn't. We should be practical and acknowledge that it is easier and more conducive to building consensus in the long run if a little discussion is tried before the revert.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding below with same timestamp in signature. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kanguole, without saying so explicitly, your point above seems to imply the belief that a discussion about whether to move an article from X to Y is not different, in terms of likelihoods of discussion outcomes with respect to consensus favoring X or Y, than a discussion about whether to move an article from Y to X, since both are really discussions about whether the article should be at X or at Y. Is that what you (and others) believe to be true?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, all of you are simply ignoring the points (and questions) I made above in the long multi-paragraph reply to Kanguole with "02:09, 13 January 2009" timestamp in the signature. Did you not read it? Please read it.

I really want to know whether each of you agrees or disagrees that a discussion about whether to move X to Y is not the same, in terms of the likelihood that the outcome will be a consensus for the article to be at "X" or "Y", or no consensus, as a discussion about whether to move Y to X, and that neither is the same as a discussion about whether the article should be at X or Y (due to the inherent tendency to look for a reason to move from wherever the article currently is). If you disagree, I'd like to understand why (in an explanation that does not ignore the points I made above). If you agree, then I'd like to understand why you never-the-less support a procedure that unfairly disfavors the stable name. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it could be approximately the same. A discussion to move back starts with a note from the proposer, explaining that the aim here is to reverse a unilateral move, and I would expect the participants to note that.  (Not long ago you were arguing that a proposal to move back would attract additional support from people opposing the original move on procedural grounds.)  During this discussion we've had signs from the admins here that from here on they will be treating such a discussion in the same way as if it had been about the original move, and I trust in that.


 * All the ways that people try to influence RM discussions: pre-emptive moves, reverting moves, moves of related pages, turning redirects under discussion into dab pages and so on are much more disruptive to the encyclopaedia than the equivalent inside a page. We need to remove the temptation, not hand out more weapons.


 * You also asked why it shouldn't be possible to get a move reverted automatically just because it was technically blocked. I think that's because it's an admin action, and we expect them to be responsible for actions they carry out.  Kanguole (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on the first question. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.  I do also trust the admins to decide in favor of revert on "no consensus" on relevant discussion, I just think that the deck is stacked against a "no consensus" outcome, and in favor of consensus supporting the move, if the page remains at the new name during the discussion and the move in question is characterized as a change from the new name, rather than to the new name.  If the result is clear consensus as a result of which "direction" the move is characterized, the position of the closing admin on this issue is moot, since it's not a "no consensus" situation.  Again, for many participants the direction may not matter, but for some, who look for a reason to move, and default to opposing the move if they do not find a compelling argument in support of the move, it is likely to matter, and in some cases it may matter enough to sway the outcome of the discussion.  Consider how many move discussions involve only a handful of people, or less...


 * On the second question, yes, we expect admins to be responsible for actions they carry out, but that doesn't answer my question. Consider a bold move of X to Y to which someone objects.  If it's technically feasible, the objector can simply revert the move, moving the article from Y back to X. IN many such cases that's the end of the whole thing.  If it's not technically feasible without admin assistance, there is simply no way for the objector to revert the move, except by going through the full-blown WP:RM process.  There is no way to even notify an admin about the desire for the revert, except for the full-blown WP:RM process.


 * Consider this hypothetical example of a situation in which a technicality prevent an objector from reverting a bold move, so the objector files a proposal to move it back at WP:RM. After a few days the admin arrives to find only the objector in favor of reverting back to the old name, and 3 in favor of leaving the article "where it is" (at the new name), the last one favoring "no move" because he doesn't find the argument for moving to be compelling. The admin can easily and reasonably find consensus in favor of the move, and "leave" it at the new name.


 * On the other hand, if there was no technical barrier preventing the objector from reverting, he could have reverted right away (instead of filing a move proposal at WP:RM). Then someone in favor of having the article at the new name would have to file at WP:RM, and the voting would be about whether to move the article to the new name.  Say the same 4 vote.  The original objector opposes the move (to the new name), and 2 of the other 3 are in favor.  But the last one, who always looks for a compelling reason to support a move, finding none, this time sides with the objector.  So now we have a 2:2 situation, clearly "no consensus", and the page remains at the old name.


 * Ugh, that ended up being a lengthy post again. Sorry, but I hope that clearly illustrates how easily a page may end up with a completely different title simply based on whether an objector is prevented technically from reverting a bold move (and has no way to request technical assistance for a speedy revert from an admin, because you won't support my proposal).  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, I think we have come around to the point where at least the two of us are basically in agreement that requested move discussions should usually take place with the page being located at the old name, not the new name. If you could respond to my last post, and tell me what you think of my idea of a short discussion before any reverts, I think we could come to a consensus pretty soon.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to make clear that I want everyone's opinion on this, not just Born2cycle's. I addressed it to him because I had just read his post. Cheers, --Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aervanath, I agree that often discussion prior to reverting a bold change can be more conducive to building consensus, and this should be encouraged, but I also think sometimes there is no better way to get others to pay attention (also required to build consensus) than a revert. In fact, BRD even explicitly states that one of the reasons to make a bold change is to find out if there are any objectors, and the way you find out is to make the bold move and see if anyone reverts.  In fact, I just did exactly that yesterday when I boldly moved Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to Roma (Romani subgroup).  At any rate, barring the situation in which a technicality prevents an objector from reverting, Wikipedia leaves the decision about whether to revert a bold change solely to the objector, and I think that's a good thing.  So I think there should be a mechanism that gives the objector the same decision-making ability in the case of a bold move that cannot be reverted due to a technicality, by providing a specific speedy revert procedure for reverting bold moves that require admin assistance due to a technicality. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that you have the right to revert without discussion, and yes, there are going to be situations where it is obvious that the move should be reverted without discussion (page move vandalism would be the extreme case of this). I think you and I just differ on when the speedy move is appropriate (and I don't think we're all that far apart on it, either).  However, this whole discussion is more about what to do in cases where the speedy revert needs admin assistance.  In those cases, I would say just list it under uncontroversial moves and explain why it should be reverted.  The responding admin will evaluate it and see if an immediate revert is justified or not.  Just don't be shocked if the admin (especially if it's me) says "No, because you haven't attempted to discuss with the mover yet."  As I stated above, I will probably be more amenable to assisting in a revert if a preliminary discussion has occurred first.  E.g. you post at uncontroversial moves, state that you gave the moving editors a chance to respond and you still disagree with the move, making sure to link to the discussion.  In those cases, yes, I would probably help you revert the move so that the subsequent Requested move discussion proceeds from the status quo ante.  How's that?--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, putting a revert request under "Uncontroversial moves" is confusing at best, since reverts are inherently not uncontroversial (except in the extreme case of reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the issue being discussed here). That's why I think the title and instructions of that section need to change.


 * Yes, we're talking about cases where the speedy revert of a bold move that turns out to have at least one objection (which it should have had none in order to avoid WP:RM) happens to need admin assistance due to a technical issue, and whether the decision of whether the revert is "justified" should be moved from the objector to the admin simply because the objector needs the admin's assistance due to a technicality. As long as it's not a revert of a move that went through WP:RM, I don't see why the revert would not be justified from an objective POV (since bold moves should only be made when there are no objections to the move, and so should be undone when there is an objection).  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem with this approach is that while in an ideal world the people whose edits were reverted would be understanding about this, nobody likes to have their work reverted. Discussing the revert ruffles fewer feathers and makes it easier to have a civil discussion. I think it odd that you There is also the fact that you have yet to get any admin to agree to perform these undiscussed reverts for you, nor can you force us to. We're all unpaid volunteers, just like anybody else, and I'm honestly just getting tired of discussing this. I have added some text to the "Requesting uncontroversial moves" section to make clear that reverts can be requested there, along with the conditions under which I would assist them. If another RM regular disagrees with the text, and reverts it, I'm not going to protest, because I'm honestly just fed up with the whole thing. Half of this talk page is covered by threads about this topic, but we haven't managed to come to a consensus yet, even though we've been discussing this for almost a month. So, I'm done.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, people don't like to be reverted. But, for the most part, reverts are allowed and are a normal part of Wikipedia.  In fact, you're even allowed up to 3 reverts for the same thing before you've done anything officially considered undesirable.  That's a fact.  So what you're essentially saying is that because people don't like to be reverted, if some technicality protects them from being diverted, an admin should take advantage of that situation and not simply assist the person who would revert if it were not for that technicality.  That allows people to take advantage of the situation, by doing moves that cannot be reverted without admin assistance, that are then virtually guaranteed to not be reverted until at least someone files and goes through a WP:RM proposal.  I don't understand why everyone seems to be okay with that, but I'm cool with dropping it too.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can certainly be considered to have edited "undesirably" from less than three reverts. Please read 3rr.  And your characterization of my position is just plain wrong.  I'm sorry we couldn't come to a consensus on this.  Happy editing.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's a mischaracterization of your position, I would like to understand what I missed. I understand 3 reverts is not an entitlement; my point was that reverting is considered a normal activity in Wikipedia.  I don't understand the reluctance of having the rules specifically ask admins to remove the technical roadblock in a case where the move would be reverted if not for the technical roadblock.  The effect of my idea is that admins would essentially just rubber stamp any revert of a bold move (after verifying that that is what it is), thus simply erasing the technical roadblock distinction between bold moves that can be reverted by a non-admin, and moves that cannot be reverted by a non-admin due to a technicality.  Thus the effect of opposing my idea necessarily amounts to supporting the idea that reverting bold moves that require admin assistance should not be so easy - that it should not just be essentially a rubber stamping process.  If that is not your position, then you agree with me that admins reverting bold moves that require admin assistance should be essentially done without question, but I don't see you saying that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You characterized my position as this: "'if some technicality protects them from being diverted,(sic) an admin should take advantage of that situation and not simply assist the person who would revert if it were not for that technicality.'" First, I object to your characterization of an admin "taking advantage" of anything here.  Any admin should be acting neutrally when using their sysop powers.  If the admin chooses not to revert, it should be based purely on their interpretation of policy and not simply because he agrees with the move. You then said: "'That allows people to take advantage of the situation, by doing moves that cannot be reverted without admin assistance, that are then virtually guaranteed to not be reverted until at least someone files and goes through a WP:RM proposal.'" I have never said that I thought admins shouldn't be helping editors make these reverts.  What I've been saying is that I am not going to be anyone's rubber stamp. If you want it reverted, talk to the editor who made the original undiscussed move.  Find out why he did it, tell him why you disagree.  If you still disagree with him, then I will be more than happy to help you move the page back to the original stable name so that he can file an RM request from there.  To me, this sounds like a situation far from "virtually guaranteed not to be reverted".--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Other proposals/Open discussions
This is a proposal to rename the "Other proposals" section to something more meaningful, such as "Open discussions", or "Open proposals". The problem as I see it, is there is a confusion as to where to put a proposed page move, and it is not clear that "Other" actually means "put it here". 199.125.109.78 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the instructions, it's quite clear where to put them. It wouldn't matter if we named it: "PUT YOUR REQUEST HERE!" If people don't read the instructions, they're not going to do it right anyway.  So I really don't care what it's called.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 04:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see the advantage of renaming the section, but not sure as to what to call it. Aervanath's point is a good one, but not necessarily relevant to what the section should be called (people who don't read won't read period). JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Open proposals" sounds like the better choice to me, if we are going to re-name it. Also "Moves for discussion", although that might get confused with WP:Miscellany for deletion.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the name "Other proposals" is something of a misnomer, since "other" implies an exception rather than the norm. How about Potentially controversial proposals to distinguish from Uncontroversial proposals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)


 * I have reverted B2C's undiscussed change. Anyway, it's got to be something generic enough but not generic to the point that the rename isn't worth it. "Moves for discussion" isn't bad. "Open Proposals" might work, though may be too vague. Just throwing ideas at the wall at this point. JPG-GR (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to apologize for being bold. Whatever happened to providing a reason other than "undiscussed" when reverting?  Anyway, what is the specific objection to Potentially controversial proposals? Isn't that exactly what is supposed to go into that section? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody asked you to apologize. But changing a stable name in the middle of a discussion is certainly not going to help achieve consensus, no matter what you're talking about.  I think this is somewhat odd behaviour from someone who was extolling the virtues of the BRD cycle over most of this talk page.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My change was consistent with WP:BRD. There is no surer way of finding out whether there is consensus for a given change than boldly implementing that change. Of course, that only works if there is a reason other than "undiscussed" provided by the reverter.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There certainly is a surer way: ask on the talk page and wait for people's responses. If there aren't any responses, then sure, go ahead and do it.  However, making rash moves in the middle of a discussion isn't the best way to go about it.  See the first entry under WP:BRD.--Aervanath (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposing something on talk page and waiting to see if anyone objects is one way to do it, yes. WP:BOLD is another.  I thought there was a good enough chance that no one would object, so I went ahead with WP:BOLD.  Again, I don't mind being reverted, I just wish a reason (other than "undiscussed") was provided for the revert.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I went browsing through the page history. Here are the different names it's had over the years:
 * Notices October 2004 - June 2005
 * Current notices June 2005 - October 2005
 * Current discussions October 2005 - April 2006
 * Current proposals April 2006 - October 2006
 * Other proposals October 2006 - present

It was renamed to "Other proposals" when the "Uncontroversial proposals" section (originally "Noncontroversial proposals") was added. So "Other proposals" seems to have worked fine for over two years. The suggestions we've had above are:
 * Open discussions
 * Open proposals
 * Potentially controversial proposals
 * Moves for discussion

Also, "Move discussions" or "Open move discussions" might be a good one. Here's one of my own: if we're going to rename one, why not give all three a facelift? The page is called Requested moves, after all, so:
 * Uncontroversial proposals -> Requests for uncontroversial moves
 * Incomplete and contested proposals -> Incomplete or contested requested moves
 * Other proposals -> Open move discussions (or whatever we decide)

Thoughts? As JPG-GR says, we're just brainstorming at this point, so don't count this as a vote in favor of anything.--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just came up with the best one ever: "Current notices of discussions on proposals of potentially controversial requested moves"! (dot com).--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like "Current Move Discussions" or "Current Move Proposals" personally. JPG-GR (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why include the redundant word "Current"? They don't exist unless they are "current", as the page does not get archived. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a popularity contest? Instead of just saying what you like, how about sharing the reasons explaining why you like or dislike the various choices?


 * I have no problem with reviewing all three section names. I see no problem with "Uncontroversial proposals" because that name accurately describes what goes into that section.


 * I can see shortening "Incomplete and contested proposals" to "Incomplete proposals". Are proposals ever "contested" for a reason other than being incomplete?  Is there such a thing as proposal that should not even be allowed to be listed in the main section for any reason other than incompleteness?  If there is no such thing as "contested" proposal in practice, the name of that section might as well just be "Incomplete proposals" because that's all that should go there.


 * Finally, the main section is for proposals that are not clearly uncontroversial, but "Proposals that are not clearly uncontroversial" is cumbersome. I still think Potentially controversial proposals most accurately reflects what goes into that section.


 * I don't like "Current move discussions" because I think it's important to keep the word proposals in there, because that's what they are. People come  to WP:RM to list moves that they have proposed.  So, "Current move proposals" is better, but it does not distinguish itself from "Uncontroversial proposals" as clearly as does "Potentially controversial proposals".  After all, "uncontroversial proposals" are "current move proposals" as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I wouldn't characterize this as a popularity contest, no "unpopular" name is going to "win", obviously. We'll decide this by consensus, as we decide all things on Wikipedia.  The name has stayed as it is now for over 2 years, so there's no sudden rush to change it.  Also, we're talking about the name of a section on a page.  As I pointed out above, the actual name of the section is not crucial to anything, so it's perfectly reasonable to offer an opinion on what sounds good without elaborating, especially since we're only at the "brainstorming" phase.
 * To answer your question about the name of "Incomplete and contested proposals", the "contested" part is because that's where we put proposals that were filed as "uncontroversial" but actually are potentially controversial. So that's a holding pen for those requests.
 * I don't like "potentially controversial proposals" because it sounds overly cumbersome, although it is descriptive. Also, why do you object to "discussions"?  Since all of the proposals link to discussions, how is that an inaccurate description?--Aervanath talks like a <b style="color:green;">mover</b>, but not a shaker 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is descriptive. I didn't make it up, I just lifted the words already used on the page descriptions.  That's why I went ahead with my bold change - I thought it was obviously perfect.  But if you can think of a more succinct but still descriptive way to say it, that would be great.


 * I don't object to "discussions"; I object to omitting "proposals". I think "discussions" is more obviously implied than "proposals", so if you're going to leave one out, I prefer leaving out "discussions".  In other words, I think it's important to emphasize that these are move proposals.  I don't think it's important to emphasize that these are "discussions" - that is already obvious since the links are typically called "Discuss" and they are on Talk pages.  In fact, what's being listed in each case is not the discussion itself, but a proposal, along with a link to the discussion, so in that sense "proposals" is more accurate than "discussions". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, for uncontroversial proposals there are no discussions, so "Discussions" does distinguish it. The section currently called "Other proposals" is really for "Discussions about potentially controversial move proposals".  What's the most succinct way to say that? "Potentially controversial proposal discussions?"  How about...
 * Uncontroversial moves
 * Incomplete requests
 * Potentially controversial move discussions
 * --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm fine with "Uncontroversial moves". "Incomplete requests" doesn't really reflect the fact that we move uncontroversial requests there if we think they should be discussed first. I know "Incomplete or contested requests" sounds cumbersome as well, so I'm trying to think of a better name for that, too. For the third one, since neither of the others are actually discussions, why bother adding "potentially controversial"? It seems like an unnecessary disambiguator to me. I'm not denying that they are potentially controversial, but it's a little bit overkill, don't you think?--Aervanath (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "Move discussions" is certainly short and sweet. I do think that "Incomplete requests" is accurate for requests moved from "Uncontroversial moves" because the reason they are moved there instead of directly to the discussion section is because they are incomplete.  That could be explained in the description for that section.  Do we have a compromise agreement with "Move discussions" and "Incomplete requests"?  Who else needs to get involved here? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel that strongly about the middle section, so I want to wait and see what JPG-GR thinks on that one before endorsing it. We also don't yet have his agreement on "Move discussions" as yet.  So give it a day or so.--Aervanath (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Uncontroversial Proposals" and "Incomplete and Contested Proposals" are fine the way they are. Along the same lines, if we're gonna change "Other proposals", "Move Proposals" fits the theme.
 * Why do I prefer "proposal" over "request"? Request is something being asked for without the need for discussion (i.e. something that might require editprotected) whereas these are all proposals that are looking for outside input. JPG-GR (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning shouldn't "Uncontroversial proposals" be called "Uncontroversial requests" since items listed in that section are there specifically because they don't require discussion or outside input (and should be moved to Incomplete and then the main section - once complete - if they do require discussion and outside input)?


 * Please comment on my reasoning that "and Contested" can be dropped to simplify the title to "Incomplete proposals" since the only reason for "contested" proposals to be placed there is because they are "incomplete" (a contested proposal that is not incomplete goes into the main section for discussion). In other words, every entry in that section is "incomplete", whether it is "contested" or not, so why not just call it "Incomplete proposals"?


 * I'm fine with either "Move discussions" or "Move proposals". --Born2cycle (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with "Move proposals" is that they're ALL move proposals; these are the only ones for which discussions have been opened, which is why I favor using the word "discussions".--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand JPG-GR (if he's going to revert changes related to discussions, I wish he would participate in the discussions more), his point is that proposal implies discussion, whereas "request" does not. So the "Uncontroversial" ones are "requests", not "proposals", and the "Incomplete" ones are incomplete requests (once they are completed, and ready for properly announced discussions, then they are "proposals").  But I agree the more explicit "Move discussions" is better since it doesn't depend on the implicit meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)