Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 24

Action at WP:ANI concerning an irregular move proposal
Just a quick notification, colleagues: I have initiated an action at WP:ANI, concerning an unadvertised move proposal for Men's rights – a highly controversial article that had already been through a failed RM. Many will consider it quite irregular. But we'll see, right? N oetica Tea? 12:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've seen, I trust. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RM contradicted by Article title policy
RM states "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." In the case discussed above, talk page discussion was advertised via an RfC, it was taken to ANi which concluded that ""An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved". Forcing all potentially contentious moves through RM rather than getting them resolved on article talk pages is, in my view, an unnecessary increase in bureaucracy. Please discuss at WT:AT. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about all potentially controversial moves, but about moves known to be controversial based on a previous RM discussion, and an apparent intentional procedure to avoid RM as a way to get the result. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarification, AT policy states:


 * That says "Any", not just moves known to be controversial from previous RM discussion. Assume good faith is a useful guideline. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But I thought we were particularly discussing "the case discussed above", which is what my comments were about.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. The "case discussed above" established the principle that RfC is an appropriate mechanism for getting community consensus. We can recommend RM as having advantages, but not insist it is the only mechanism.
 * At WT:AT there's suggested wording for bringing that into line with the RM page, and incorporating the suggestion that if editors "believe the move might be controversial, consider using the movenotice template" from WP:MOVE. The RM page currently states "It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." Using that template is helpful when starting such discussion, it would be good to bring RM into line with MOVE in suggesting the template. . .  dave souza, talk 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The new RMCD bot could always just add movenotice all the time, and remove it when an RM is closed... (say add a switch to move to indicate that the bot added it, so the bot can remove those instances when the linked discussion no longer has the move template on it) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: for recent proposals see WT:AT and WT:AT. . dave souza, talk 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You say the case "established the principle that RfC is an appropriate mechanism for getting community consensus". I felt the opposite.  There was some fair outrage about how the process circumvented the usual adverising of a controversial move.  I think we should be discouraging that, not making like it's OK.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Dicklyon here. A single decision at ANI does not in anyway establish principals that go against long-standing policies and practice.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy and practice are unchanged, the aim in the linked discussion is to make AT clearer. It remains desirable for contentious moves to go through the RM process to get expert attention, and for uncontentious moves to be resolved by informal article talk page discussion. "Should" also remains advisory and not mandatory; as shown by the BBC "should" does not mean "must". . . dave souza, talk 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

RMCD Bot and long multiple moves
The new bot doesn't seem to post information notices for multimoves involving more than 9 source/destination pairs. See Talk:List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes (season 1) and seasons 10+ listed. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bot was pattern-matching just single digits. I fixed it to match one or more digits.  Bot test page User:Wbm1058/current – Compare – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of probable interest to the editors of this page
Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_93

I didn't see it on this talk page, but I just did a quick scan, if someone has already mentioned this here, please simply delete this post, thanks. KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No consensus outcomes
"If [an article title] has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. (from TITLECHANGES)"

The above pertinent wording of TITLECHANGES is surprisingly old and stable. It was written into policy 19:53, 19 September 2009 by PBS, and modifed 16:37, 22 September 2009 by Pmanderson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jenks24, would you please explain your revert here. No consensus defaults to the status quo was rejected years ago. It seems that this backwater (RCMI) somehow never noticed. Defaulting to the status quo encourages non-productive gaming, as noted years ago. If there is a common sense reason against the first non-stub version, surely it will have been noted in the RM discussion??  If noted and agreed, of course the closer can and should follow consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Joe. Sorry to revert you, but I don't think no consensus closures are as black-and-white your change made it appear to be. Here is a scenario I'm envisaging that's problematic with just the text you added: article is created (as a non-stub) at "A" in 2005, moved to "B" in 2008 and remains there uncontroversially until it's moved without discussion to "C" in 2012. For whatever reason (possibly the redirect gets edited or the editor doesn't know about BRD), a RM is started to move it back. The RM ends as no consensus and no one in the discussion mentions "A" as a viable title. Admins should then have the discretion to move back to "B" if they feel it's appropriate. There are also plenty of cases where, for some reason or another, the first non-stub title is not viable. I don't see why some of the TITLECHANGES text can't be incorporated into the page, but I think admin discretion needs to remain and for first non-stub version to not be the only option. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jenks24. A no consensus outcome at a single RM discussion should not necessitate going back to the ur-title. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I am in concert with Jenks24 here for the reasons he states, but because overtime consensus on the interpretation of policies, guidelines (especially MOS and naming conventions) may change in a way that renders the first non-stub version to be an improper title. I think admin descretion here is very important because in reality No Consensus is really Split Consensus where there is strong internal consensus among opposing groups of participants. Rarely does that split consensus ever go away unless there's been a major policy change one way or the other. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Jenks here. There are a number of reasons as Mike mentions why going to the first version may be inappropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are all missing the point. It is not for the closer to unanimously decide that the first version was inappropriate. It is for someone in the RM discussion. If the closer can read this in the RM discussion, then he can move beyond the default. Sure, explain this better, but don't you see that there is a problem with no consensus closes that needs development. Also note that the previous version is contrary to policy and the contradiction needs to resolve somehow. Simple reversion is not the way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenks, black and white was certainly not my intention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited again. WP:TITLECHANGES needs mention, but of course admin discretion remains.  The first version may be inappropriate.  Preferably, for me, the evidence of this will come from the RM discussion.  The question I was focused on is: What is the default, the original title, or the recent status quo.  Long ago, 2005 or so, it was decided to prefer the original over the status quo, for reasons of reducing edit warring.  But the "default" is not mandatory.  Default means the one you use when there is not a good reason not to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about adding "When it is unclear which title is the default, or the default does not have support among discussion participants, the closer is advised to resort to the title that is most widely supported among the discussion participants, and encourage the discussants to continue working towards consensus in a non-combative atmosphere."? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would basically ignore the strength of the arguments. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. So let's try to balance it evenly: "When it is unclear which title is the default, or the default does not have support among discussion participants, the closer is advised to chose a title factoring in both use evidence and majority view, and encourage the discussants to continue working towards consensus in a non-combative atmosphere."? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 02:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely uncomfortable with the language that's been created in this section of WP:RMCI. First and foremost, WP article title decisions should be policy based, and reflect community consensus as to what policy interpretation is most appropriate for a given title. Now since our title policy is extremely conflicted and lacks real consensus on disambiguation, primary topics, MOS, diacritics, etc., using the wording in this section to make a title decision is non-sensical. What is and is not a stable title? Unless we define that, how can anyone judge whether a title is stable or not? Additionally, I think the idea of No Consensus in title changes is problematic. As I said above, its actually split consensus where there is strong consensus on both sides of the discussion for their version of the right title. The closer's job is to decide which side, which title proposition is best supported by title policy and community consensus as to which policy interpretation is most appropriate for the specific title. Although I realize WP:Title uses this phrase, the default title, I think that is aimed at editors, not admins closing RMs. We, the community, have allowed individual editors to make ill-concieved, policy ignorant, title decisions as long as there's no redirect that has to be deleted by an admin. This allowance causes no end of downstream problems. If we don't like the results of Bold title moves, then we should eliminate that option. If the default title is so easy to devine, then let's write a bot to change all titles to the default. But let's not create language that no body in their right mind can interpret, apply and be held accountable to just to cover up problems with our article move process. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For those you supporting this language, is this Banh bo, now subject to an RM a stable or unstable title? What is the default title? and what policy/guideline basis supports the default title?  There is currently split consensus at the RM  --Mike Cline (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are issues with the original title of Banh ho, then these issues should be raised in the RM discussion. The closer can then close taking the issues into account.  Why is that hard?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You actually didn't answer the question. Is this title stable or unstable, and if it remains at the so-called "default", then what is the policy basis for that title? Those are questions a closer must evaluate if your language is adopted. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer “disputed” to “unstable”, although it takes a decent argument, not just one or two assertions, to reach the level of “disputed”. (kind of like how much dispute is required to make a disputed tag stick.  Looking at the page history and the talk page, I’d call it obvious that the preferred page is disputed.


 * For Banh bo, the default page name is the title of first non-stub version. It was first called Bánh bò nướng, but was then tagged a stub and within 12 hours the sole author had renamed it to Bánh bò.  It remained with that title for a couple of months when at 02:24, 1 August 2007, User:Katharineamy removed the stub tags.  Therefore, the default, per TITLECHANGES, is Bánh bò.  The policy basis supporting this title is found at Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES.


 * Those questions, whether there is dispute, and what the first non-stub title was, should be considered facts. If those facts are not agreed on, then a discussion focused on those facts is required.


 * Let’s assume that there was a well participated discussion, well enough behaved.


 * The closer then must evaluate whether there is a consensus for a preferred title. If not, is there a rough consensus for a preferred title.  These outcomes are easy.  What if there is not even a rough consensus?  The closer should then consider the default title.  Was there a consensus or rough consensus ‘’against’’ the default title?  If no, move the page back to the default title.  What if there was a rough consensus against the default title, but no consensus for a preferred title?  Here, the closer is stuck.  I recommend that having got this far, the potential closer should then !vote and leave the close for someone else.


 * Now, sometimes you mention policy. If an admin examines a discussion with a view to closing, and finds that the participants have ignored and contradicted an applicable policy or guideline, then unless absolutely clear-cut, the admin should not close, but !vote raising the issue of the applicable policy.  Another admin can then potentially decide that the !vote trumped all others and close accordingly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at Banh bo and cast my !vote. I too don't like the idea of the default option, but as some of us clearly do, I think we should allow it as an option for the closer to consider. I think we might want to put precedent in similar cases as another consideration for the closer to consider. Giving the closer more options other than just resorting to the status que is good in my mind. In the case of Banh bo, calling upon the discussion participants to come up with Wikipedia precedents would seem to carry the benefit of fostering a uniform look-and-feel across the project. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, my current suggestion is: "When it is unclear which title is the default, or the default does not have support among discussion participants, the closer is advised to chose a title factoring in use evidence, Wikipedia precedent in similar cases and majority view, and encourage the discussants to continue working towards consensus in a non-combative atmosphere." Your thoughts? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see this as mob rule. You get more !votes and you move the page.  No reason to write policies or use them to support a position. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see what you mean. First there is default, then if that does not work there are three considerations, only one of which is majority view. How is this mob rule? Could you be more specific so I can try and factor your view in there too? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 03:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your proposals are perceived to say that !votes are what matters. Policies and guidelines are not as important.  Also, there can be no default titles.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "There can be no default titles"? Nonsense.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I am not surprised that you are uncomfortable.

But aren’t you more unfortable that RMCI, which you (at WT:Move review) seem to regard as the preeminent authority covering RM discussions, has been explicitly at odds with Article titles, which is tagged as official policy?

“Our title policy is extremely conflicted and lacks real consensus” Can you substantiate that? Where is the evidence for a lack of consensus. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of disrepect for RM closes, which is evidence for a lack of consensus support for the WP:RM process, and WP:RMCI included.

Looking at Move_review/Log/2012_July_10, you essentially upheld Beeblebrox’s interpretation of RMCI. Did his close (a reflection of RMCI) have the support of the wider community? He was hammered for it at Requests_for_bureaucratship/Beeblebrox. In comparison, the close of Yogurt/Yoghurt applied the principle of defualting to the first pre-stub version. Did you follow the subsequent comments on that close at Requests_for_bureaucratship/28bytes?

I am becoming increasing confident that RMCI, particularly on the subject of no consensus, is a crock. You talk of language “aimed at editors, not admins”. Do you mean to say that in this area the project has slipped into a practice of being run by admins, not the community? RMCI is almost explicitly the domain of admins. It doesn’t even have a proper talk page.

Eliminating Bold moves? Yes, I’ve thought about that before. Maybe elimitating bold moves on many-revision articles would be a good idea. But maybe not. WP:RM is already backlogged, and this idea would seem to just load a whole lot more work onto WP:RM. Better, would be to improve policy towards something that works.

As previously, the first non-stub version is a good default, better than the previous status quo. Reference to the previous status quo encourages gaming. It encourages early, quiet bold page moving. In the event of “no consensus” (of anything) it is better to move back to the first non-stub version. It is not better to say “no consensus” means do nothing (i.e. cement the last page move). It is not better to say that “no consensus” is not a reasonable outcome, and therfore I must supervote.

Your problem seems to be that there are exceptions. Fine. Describe the exceptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My problem is that in a lot of RMs, there are participants that don't actually care what community consensus on title policy is. They have a pet agenda--no disambiguation, natural disambiguation, primary topic, diacritics, no diacritics, caps, no caps, my sources are better than your sources, I don't think the title criteria apply to my pet agenda,  there should always be exceptions to naming conventions (especially for my pet agendda), I don't like Ngrams, your google search is not as good as my search, I know what the readers want, you don't know what the readers want, I used to live there and know what people call it, its never been called that by the locals, your title is POV mine isn't, etc., etc.  This kind of discussion generally isn't productive toward deciding a policy based title, and regardless of the outcome, 50% of the participants will be unhappy, even if that outcome is a return to the so-called "default".  As I said above, if title "stability" and "default titles" is so easy to devine, then lets write a BOT to make title decisions. I think trying to legislate a cooking cutter a solution for RM discussions where there is split consensus is problematic. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand and sympathise with what you say are the problems in many RMs. It was from browsing RMs that I became convinced of Sayre's law.
 * You say “50% of the participants will be unhappy, even if that outcome is a return to the so-called "default"”. Sure.  Can I simplify to “50% of the participants will be unhappy”.  There’s nothing that can be done about that?  Actually, there is.  People become unhappiest when they feel they were arbitrarily hard done by.  When people fall foul of a well defined rule, they are much more prepared to take it on the chin.  Failing that, if you have to make someone happy, and someone else unhappy, why not favour the original author?
 * Stability, or whether the title is in dispute, is a question of whether there is a consensus in support of the status quo. That should be easy to determine, usually.  An RM on a stable, undisputed title, if participated, will usually see a consensus close.
 * The “default title” is well defined. It is the original title on the first non-stub revision.  Sometimes, interpretation will be required.  For example, the original author may have made a small typo in the title and not noticed before someone started stuff.  We can handle that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does "If no consensus can be determined on what the title should be, note that TITLECHANGES advises moving back to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." work any better for you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I feel like I am playing in the sand in a hole in the middle of the road


 * From my perspective, a big part of the problem is the section heading "No consensus outcomes". The guidance from WP:AT applies when the title has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time -- it is not very helpful guidance for most RM discussions that result in a no consensus outcome. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That true. It is a problem, although I didn't think it big. As above, I don't think "stable" is the best choice of words. If a title is moved from its original, remains undisputed for years, and then becomes disputed, to the point of no concensus. Do you think it should go back to the original, or go back (remain at) to the long lasting title? I think it should go back to the original, regardless of the period of non-dispute. WP:Silence is the weakest form of concensus, and generally, there are no time limits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I unequivocally disagree with anything implying that a no consensus outcome should result in going back to the original title. The guidance provided in WP:AT is for exceptional situations of protacted disagreement and should not be the normal course of affairs for most no consensus outcomes. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We disagree then. In a head-to-head contest between the first non-stub title and the current title resulting in no consensus, it should go back to the first non-stub title.  (your position enables and requires me to create and maintain a protacted disagreement to get what I want) However, that is actually a question for WT:AT, and I agree with you that this page should reflect the guidance of of the policy page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it depends. If the article title has been uncontested for years, a single no contest outcome should not mean going back to the original title. That would be an invitation for chaos (even more than usual). If there are a half dozen RMs in relatively short order, then some extraordinary resolution may be needed and that is where the quoted guidance from WP:AT applies (If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be). older ≠ wiser 23:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That is agreeable equivocation. It depends.  I also disagree that older ≠ wiser, unless where talking about someone over the hill.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, using an argument such as being perceived does not make you any less cryptic. A good argument allows the discussants to pick it apart and examine its assumptions. I state majority view as one of three considerations which in whole are described to be no more than an advice to the closer, that he or she can draw upon in the specific case where 1) the notion of consensus rule proved insufficient as a guide. 2) the notion of the default option proved insufficient as a guide.

Furthermore, the fact that !votes without a supporting argument are more likely to be disregarded than not is well documented in other policies. By majority view I mean the majority after such discounting has been factored in. I can put that in explicitly if you wish but in my view that would make the language overly wordy for a general advice.

It seems to me you are reading into the text something that is not really there, or that you are stretching WP:NOTDEMOCRACY into an extreme interpretation that forces is to clash with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. In real life debate does not always converge to consensus and decisions still have to be made. If we leave them completely to specialized experts that is a bureaucracy. If we leave them to vote counting that is a democracy. If we want to avoid both we have to pick some middle ground.

Bottom line: it is hard for me to know how to fix what is only perceived but is not actually there. Could you offer something more constructive? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 12:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have difficulty in understanding why the first line of the paragraph is being ignored in this conversation (it says ) That has to come before the second sentence, if the second sentence is to be interpreted in context. Some of the hypothetical examples given here are ignoring the first sentence of the paragraph -- which is not surprising when the first sentence by way of an introduction to this section says "The above pertinent wording ..." and ignores the equally pertinent wording of the first sentence in the paragraph!

The first sentence is what makes changing names sticky and why the default is not to move. The type of argument the second sentence hits on the head is arguments over spelling "Orange (colour)" and words like gasoline/petrol Tram/Streetcar, Goods wagon/Freight car. It could also have been used for Yogurt and saved a lot of people a lot of time. -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi PBS. The above wording was “pertinent” because it was pertinent to the question at hand.  The preceding sentences I took as understood, although there is the question of “what is stable”.  I had assumed that a disputed title with a formal no consensus result in a RM discussion was not a “stable” title. (not stable as in having weak foundations).  I am not unhappy with that section of policy at all, and I note that that section, if not the page in general, is stable. The “pertinent” part is pertinent because it, in isolation perhaps, is in apparent conflict with RMCI on the subject of no consensus closes for unstable titles.


 * For the purpose of these conversations here, I think we need to assume the following: The page title is not stable.  The discussions on the title result in “no consensus” in all aspects.  The original non-stub title and the recent title are both not unreasonable, but there is committed disagreement over which, of these and others, is best.


 * On the question of yogurt/yoghurt, to have saved a lot of people a lot of time, who should have done what when? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are maybe missing the context in which this discussion is taking place. Have a read of . We have been implicitly focusing on titles that have come to be the scene of an endless tag of war, and we are just trying to be creative in seeking a solution to that problem. Stable titles are just not really in the scope. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the examples I gave above were not stable, but became so because of this paragraph. There are times when an alternative is tried by the closing administrator, which does become the stable version, but it may just become another short lived title in the mix of alternatives. The point I am making is that the paragraph has to be read as a whole (which does not seem to have been happening in this section). Also think that it is time that the customary moratorium of at least six months between move requests should be explicitly documented in WP:RM (with the necessary flexibility to handle exceptions). -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

&rarr;Yaniv256windroads 00:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think we are also implicitly excluding EngVar cases, as we have come to agree these are well handled by wp:retain. We should probably put something in to that effect too. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 22:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was reverted. Before revertion the no consensus passage read "Titles that have been the focus of long disputes that go beyond the question of English variety do not enjoy the privilege of being the default. If no consensus can be determined on what the title should be, note that TITLECHANGES advises moving back to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. When it is unclear which title is that, or that title does not have support among discussion participants, the closer is advised to chose a title factoring in use evidence, Wikipedia precedent in similar cases and majority view, and encourage the discussants to continue working towards consensus in a non-combative atmosphere."
 * That gives undo weight to the first title and assumes that it was in fact correct and that the focus has not changed. NRHP created articles are prone to misleading titles, if not blatantly incorrect ones.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but am working towards a compromise with SJ, which seems to favor that idea. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 00:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vegaswikian, aren't NRHP created articles always created explicitly as stubs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I will say that some editors and maybe the vast majority are, but not all.  I believe that the NRHP naming suggests that you use the name on the nomination.  So if the building of a company was nominated, the article could be titled 'Foo Company' rather than 'Foo Company building'.  So this would be an excellent example of why the first name is not always the wisest choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is NRHP? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NRHP I presumed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vegaswikian, Did you misunderstand me to be saying that the default, or the first non-stub version, or anything formulaic, is the wisest choice? No.  The default is only a wise choice with all else being equal.  It is a tie-breaker, only implemented in the case of a tie. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not responding to you on that, just making a general comment. The first choice is not always right, and it needs to be vetted before it has priority over other options.  The NRHP cases I have seen proves this point.  Now what I don't know is how valid the first choices are.  I'll note that in many cases, articles are written using the best judgement about the name only to find out months or years later what the correct name is.  Movies being one good example.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this twick then: "Titles that have been the focus of long disputes that go beyond the question of English variety should not enjoy the privilege of being the default. TITLECHANGES advises moving back to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Alternatively, the closer may chose a title factoring in the evidence presented, Wikipedia precedent in similar cases and majority view, and encourage the discussants to continue working towards consensus in a non-combative atmosphere." &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 00:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was reverted again with no talk page discussion. Would someone be so kind as to allow me some room to work with? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yaniv, please stop editing WP:RMCI. My edits were already bold enough for this week.  We need some RM closer regulars to get on board.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. My mistake. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is not for the closer to chose their own title based on their own biases. As that's all it is: if the evidence and policies point towards a particular title then that should be resolved through discussion. If the discussion cannot resolve this, so there's no consensus for any particular title, then the page should not be moved. This should not be overridden by one editor's personal choice. As for 'long disputes'; like what? If the result is no consensus editors should accept that, and accept that redirects and disambiguation mean readers will still find the page, and move on. There are far more important things to do than argue again and again about the title of an obscure article. And stop changing the policy unilaterally in such a drastic way without first getting consensus for it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read as these are issues we have already come to agree upon. Or at least so I thought. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The last thing in that is you saying you are "dropping the stick", accepting that you've failed to convince others. So why are you back here now resurrecting essentially the same idea? And from that overlong discussion one important question you failed to answer: any examples of articles with "long disputes" over names that this would help? Even if this were implemented it would do nothing to stop "long discussions" as the outcome of "no consensus" would allow those unhappy with the outcome to start yet another discussion, hoping that this time the closer's would prefer their choice.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you did not notice in that debate I was mainly arguing against returning to the first non-stub name. Having dropped the stick on that issue I am working now to come up with language that would express the widest consensus possible, and includes that idea at least as an option. As for examples Born2Cycle has a few, to which I would add, Burma, Pink slime, and the one that got me here, 2007-2012 global financial crisis. As my experience is limited, I don't know if these are the best examples, but they fit the bill, if you ask me. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 02:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why legislating No Consensus Outcome is problematic
Here's an RM Union Flag that could become subject to this new language. First this article has been moved trice before so I guess it is unstable. It apparently started at Union Jack and went back and forth to Union Flag. Looks like its been at Union Flag since 2007. Now it is at RM to go back to Union Jack. Given the state of discussion at this point, any RM closer could rightly (IMHO) assess no consensus (its 11:7) with good arguments on both sides. It really is a policy problem, but the arguments are all about COMMONNAME and our methods of devining commonnames are inconsistent. Both sides believe their version is the commonname (not unusual in RMs). Now if the close is made as a no concensus close and this new language was in-effect, wouldn't it mandate that the title go back to Union Jack because it was the first title? If that's the case, all editors need to do is drive No consensus discussions to get back the title they want. No admin descretion required and if the closer didn't move it back, would they be afoul of WP:RMCI?. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of mandating a move back to the first non-stub title for the simple reason that the first non-stub title may not be appropriate or correct (and, as a secondary reason, we're just going to end up with arguments on what was or was not the first non-stub version!). The current wording, which prefers the current title if it has been stable for a while, is the most workable because (a) it has been stable for a while and (b) that stability was likely the result of discussion on the talk page (and we don't want to let all that discussion go to waste). A "no consensus" decision is not definitive and merely means that the closing admin has seen insufficient reasons provided for the alternative title and it should be seen as the start of a new discussion. If, for example, there is evidence for support for moving back to the first non-stub version (or any previous version), then it is a fairly simple matter to file a new move request. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody anywhere that I can see has suggested mandating a move to anything. Was yoghurt stable?  Was Banh bo stable?  Advising the interested editors to explicitly nominate a move to the original non-stub title might solve this.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If both sides make valid arguments why not just close as no consensus but still go with the majority? Surely, democracy has some benefits? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 14:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is not a democracy.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote:"It seems to me you are reading into the text something that is not really there, or that you are stretching WP:NOTDEMOCRACY into an extreme interpretation that forces is to clash with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. In real life debate does not always converge to consensus and decisions still have to be made. If we leave them completely to specialized experts that is a bureaucracy. If we leave them to vote counting that is a democracy. If we want to avoid both we have to pick some middle ground."

- Yaniv256 And please try to avoid oneliners and over linking policy to experienced editors, as both are commonly seen as rude, in particular on top of that distinct touch of WP:HOUND fragrance to your interest here.&rarr;Yaniv256windroads 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked a question concisely, I answered it concisely. As the answer was also a policy I linked to that but my answer stands on its own.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MC and regentspark. The number of cases where an article has not had a stable name are few and far between, so the need to consider the initial name as a solution are also few and far between. A cleaner and simpler method of addressing instability is to make explicit in the guidance the customary time outs between move request. That would have stopped quite a few of the Yoghurt move requests. -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please listen. No EngVar is in scope. Furthermore, consider that suppressing discussion after no-consensus is inconsistent with the spirit of wp:consensus. When we are talking EngVar I can so why we might want to curve out an exception. But stretching that exception seems unwise too me. These disputes don't go away when silenced. They just accumulate ire in the dark and drive good editors to greener pastures outside Wikipedia. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 17:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yaniv256, PBS is not advocating suppressing discussion but rather an automatic delay factor in formal move requests. Editors can, and should. keep the discussion alive on the talk page - perhaps working on alternative titles or perhaps seeking new arguments that would convince editors. There is, generally though not always, little point in turning around and initiating the exact same move request immediately after a no consensus decision. That's what PBS means by 'customary time outs'. --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry then. My mistake. Just pile it on at the top of the pile. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Yaniv256 FYI Yogurt/Yoghurt is not a specific national division of spelling). It is not just no consensus, it works the other way as well. Suppose a move has been made by a closing administrator (and then as per the new process a review has been made that found the close within process), so the loosing party immediately opens a new WP:RM to try to get a different outcome. In practice opening another RM soon after the last one is closed it is seen as akin to forum shopping and disruptive, but perhaps we need to make it explicit so that ignorance is no defence. The problem is making it explicit it must be with the necessary qualifications so that useful constructive new requests are not prohibited. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike,


 * Why aren’t you answering my questions?
 * Do you fault my logic regarding Banh bo?
 * What is your retrospective view of the close of Côte d'Ivoire, given a reading of the directly comments on it at Requests_for_bureaucratship/Beeblebrox. Specifically, is RMCI perfectly fine?
 * Do you think there is no problem that RMCI makes no reference to the policy Article titles or its section “Considering title changes” aka WP:TITLECHANGES?
 * On Union flag, I don’t see the problem that you seem to think obvious. If the Commonname arguments end not resolving the question (I think they will), then the closer has to do something.  RMCI currently makes no mention of the first non-stub version, and yet you’ll find this language is many places elsewhere.
 * “all editors need to do is drive No consensus discussions to get back the title they want” How does an editor drive a no consensus outcome.  Are you unable to see disingenuous debating games?  You apparent preference, to default to “no move”, ie. Default to the title immediately before the RM nomination, encourages bold page moving in preparation of an RM discussion.
 * I do agree with you that “what is a stable version” is a good question, and I’d like to see you and PBS (as it is his language) discuss it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to apparently have ignored your responses. Banh bo and Union Flag were just examples to help raise and clarify my concerns.  Your position on those articles, however valid or invalid as they may be, hasn't swayed my concerns (I didn't expect them too).


 * I will answer one specific question you've raised. Do you think there is no problem that RMCI makes no reference to the policy Article titles or its section “Considering title changes” aka WP:TITLECHANGES? Of course it makes reference to title policy. Please read this entire section Determining Consensus and tell me that RMCI does not make reference to WP:Title and all the other assorted guidelines and naming conventions we've devised for article titles. Indeed it may not be an explicit reference, but don't you think most of the ~1400 administrators would know what that section means.  It lays out a very clear expectations for RM closers.  Now if indeed we need to legislate specific outcomes for no consensus closes, that needs to be spelled out on the policy page, in terms that leave no doubt as to what the outcome should be. Things like stable, unstable, default title need unequivocally clear definition if we are going to use those words and hold admins accountable for making the decision that the expected outcome demands.  You can't enforce or hold editors accountable for policy, when the definitions are wildly subjective.


 * What I find extremely frustrating in these discussions is the failure for most participants to recognize that admins don't start RMs (if they do, it is an an editor). Editors start RMs, and because of the nature of our Move process, most RMs have to be decided, closed and cleaned-up by Admins. If there are expectations in RMCI that you don't like, be clear about it. Merely adding an explict refernce to WP:Title doesn't change RMCI one bit.  RMCI is a set of process instructions.  If you are unhappy with WP:Title policy, which RMCI clearly enforces, change the policy, bearing in mind that the community is ~135,000 editors, not just of handful of editors. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your point about "encourages bold page moves in preparation of an RM discussion", I think most bold moves are reverted, or should be anyway per BRD, before or at the end of a discussion. If that's not the case, then language that codifies this may not be a bad idea since non-admins sometimes cannot revert a move over a redirect. --regentspark (comment) 01:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what RMCI currently says. Joe's changes removed that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, to my reading, the Banh bo and Union flag examples show that your concerns have no basis. In both cases, should the discussions be unresolvable, the first non-stub version is a reasonable default, a default worth considering.


 * I have read RMCI again as asked. It contains a high proportion of fluff – true-enough statements that don’t clearly speak to the point.  Many sentences are not “instructions”.  In that section at least (and it is that section that matters to the unhappy RM participants), it does not clearly enough reference the relevant policy.


 * You say: “It lays out a very clear expectations for RM closers”. I say that it does not.  And it most certainly does not read clearly in parallel with Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES.


 * You are again speaking of “legislate specific outcomes”. This is perhaps may fault with a poor first edit to RMCI.  That is not what I came here seeking.  The specific outcome is a balance of the discussion, normal practice, policies and guidelines, and discretion of the closer due to the specific circumstances.  What I want, is mention of the principle of the first non-stub version as a possible solution, as is entrenched in ENVAR, written clearly in RETAIN, and is actually pretty clear in TITLECHANGES.


 * Are you accusing me of not knowing who starts RM discussions? They are started by ordinary editors, when they cannot themselves move the page technically, and often by unhappy editors.  One thing that has become clear is that the unhappy editors don’t understan the closing rules.  RMCI on cententious closes is opaque, and at least in part, contradictory to standard practice and written policy.


 * In referencing the number of editors, are you trying to say that I will never be able to make a case for any change because the 135000 support that status quo? Do you support the status quo of RMCI?  Do you see no valid concerns, and no room for improvement?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike may very well have a different opinion, but I'm personally not against mentioning the first non-stub version as a possible outcome for repeat no consensus RMs where the title has never been stable. The problem is these cases are the rare exceptions for RMs that end in no consensus – most no consensus RMs have been at a stable title for a long period of time and have not been subject to repeat no consensus closures. The saying hard cases make bad law springs to mind. If, in the discussion, participants contend, referencing policy, that we should default to the first non-stub version then that is definitely something a RM closer should consider and I could even see it being the deciding factor in some cases. However, the way your original edit to RMCI read (to me, at least) was that in most no consensus RMs the closing admin should default to the first non-stub version and that's the only real option. You've mentioned the Ivory Coast RM several times, but it would have been completely inappropriate for the closer to say "well, there's no consensus again and so I'm defaulting to the first non-stub version (which happens to be Cote DIvoire, sans diacritics and apostrophe)", even though no one had mentioned that in the discussion and everyone who participated would have said was the wrong title. To a lesser extent, a similar issue comes up at WP:MRV. There, you (and others) say we should default to the first non-stub title, Financial crisis of 2007-2008, but that title is incorrect in that it uses a hyphen, not an en dash. So, are these first non-stub titles subject to typographical changes? What if it is just blatantly incorrect? For example some of our articles originally had titles like Netherlands/History. To sum up, I would be fine with something about the first non-stub version being added (not overwriting what is already there about no consensus closes), but it should be made clear that it is only an option, arguments should be made for it during the RM (i.e. the closing admin should not just pull a title out of thin air if it hasn't even been mentioned in the RM) and I would also add something, perhaps a footnote, to also point out that this is subject to gaming and admins should use their discretion if they think people are trying to game their preferred title by using this rule. Lastly, I would note that in just about every consensus-based process on Wikipedia, no consensus defaults to the status quo, so although RMCI could perhaps be improved, it does represent the community norm. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kwasi Danquah III & Tinchy Stryder
keeps cutting and pasting Tinchy Stryder to Kwasi Danquah III, and doesn't let the RM request process through. This was already brought up at WP:Articles for deletion/Kwasi Danquah III that an RM was needed. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He twice edited Requested moves/Current discussions directly, either not seeing or ignoring the page notice there, and of course the bot promptly reverted him. I entered his request at Talk:Tinchy Stryder – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Paying Attention to Step 7 in Nutshell
I have been cleaning up Category:Proposed moves which results from placing the template on the article. So far I've removed the template from at least 15 pages where the Requested Move discussion had been closed by an admin, sometimes up to a year ago. When an RM is closed, the template should be removed from the article page. I am equally at fault here, as I found 3 that I failed to remove. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the category useful? The vast majority of move requests don't use it. Perhaps we should modify the template so that it doesn't add the category but serves merely as a notice for those who visit the article itself. --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the category would be useful to identify move initatives that are not connected to RMs, but movenotice doesn't work that way yet. Additionally, most of the entires in the category are on talk pages, which is not where they belong.  I've also initiated a request at talk:template:movenotice to add a warning when the movenotice is improperly placed on the talk page.  I still need to do lots of clean-up to see what's really supposed to be in the category. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RMCD bot Approved for trial
See Bots/Requests for approval. I will begin manual updates shortly. Cannot guarantee a set schedule for updates. Am looking into how to automate my bot. Feel free to continue manual updates if you can't wait—while I'm sleeping, etc.—for the next bot update. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great news. Thanks so much for taking this on. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed a glitch with how it handles titles or proposed titles with an embedded en dash. Looking into it.  Let me know if you see any other issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that bug existed with the old bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bug was in the last harej version for which the source code was posted. But from RM bot's last edit, see for example, (Discuss) – Byzantine–Arab Wars →  – it is apparent that HardBoiledEggs had fixed that bug.  It involves some tricky pattern matching and this project is my first exposure to regular expressions.  I know what it should do, now I just need to figure out the syntax to make it happen.  Before my bot gets full approval, I should make sure that it's at least as good as HBE's last version.  Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, HBE's couldn't deal with dashes properly either. The Arab–Byzantine RM only displays correctly because of this edit. For whatever reason, the bot only reads – correctly, not the unicode en dash. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks.  That gives me an idea of an easier angle from which to tackle the problem.  That edit fixed it because "–" comes before the reason begins ("First, I don't know..."), and "&ndash;" does not – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also linking ? when it shouldn't, on "moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below" requests. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Wbm1058 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot is now automated
No, I did not stay up all night running the bot. Last evening I set it free as a scheduled task that runs every 15 minutes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot approved
I'm now an official bot operator Thanks everyone for your patience during the month it was in development, and help with manual updates. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, efforts like yours are underappreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Important new RFC at WT:TITLE
Editors may be interested in a new RFC that has just started at WT:TITLE (not to be confused with an earlier RFC, which it appears to make redundant):
 * RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves

This RFC affects the standing of WP:RM as the established central resource for dealing with controversial moves.

N oetica Tea? 10:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

help listing a request
Please help. For some reason the bot did not pick this Talk:Mixed-breed_dog up. I guess I must have done something wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the level of the heading but I don't think that will be enough. If it's not listed in 15 minutes or so, then delete and recreate the header of the section using the template again per the instructions at WP:RM.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I went ahead and changed the header of the section per the instructions at WP:RM. Should get listed now.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I did it caused it to go straight to the backlog, but at least it's there. Hopefully someone will relist it so it goes back to the top.  Offhand, I don't know how to cause that to happen.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I researched how to relist and did it (instructions are in the Closing instructions.. you just insert   into the header.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing move request for Rapid transit article
I notice that the "Requested move 5" discussion found at Talk:Rapid transit is missing here, and that the page is also not found in the Category:Requested moves page. Can someone please check on whether that request was properly registered? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been resolved now by a relisting action. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlog
I have a suggestion for the backlog. If an RM request has no activity (no votes or comments have been logged) and has been in the backlog for a week, then it should be closed as no contest and be moved (this would not establish a consensus), treating it as a uncontroversial rename request. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it lacks consensus, just close and don't move.
 * Since there are no responses, it would be the equivalent to listing at the technical request section, so why not move? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither. Follow the nuanced path between already set forth in the middle paragraph at WP:RMCI.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no responses, then there's no consensus to determine (no votes, no comments, nothing). There is only the request of the nominator. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A lack of local consensus does not mean there is no consensus to determine. If the request is consistent with policy, guidelines and consensus in similar requests, then the closer can determine that there is consensus support.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 76.65.131.248, what's stopping you from closing RMs as you suggest. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a mere IP, he can't perform any page move.? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
It looks like Talk:CBS Records could use some love from RM--although instead of coming here, it looks like they are trying to go from talk page "votes" to mediation. Dekimasu よ! 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New Archive?
This page talks about "New Archive" several times. What is that supposed to mean? News Archive? --Espoo (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "this page", but in the context of any talk page, "new archive" normally means stop using the old archive and start using a "new archive". You will note above that this talk page has many archive pages, numbered (now) from 1 to 24. It is automatically archived by a bot that starts a new archive page every time the old one exceeds 150K bytes. Apteva (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BrainPop
Someone has renamed the article BrainPOP, but I don't think that's correct. Would someone please look at it and see which one is correct under WP:NAME? If you move it back, would you kindly add a note to the talk page so that editors of the article can understand whether to use the caps or not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * see Talk:BrainPOP – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Weekenders (TV pilot)
I'd like to know if this is in process, since Talk:The Weekenders (TV pilot) requested move was opened and closed on 22 September, with an objection lodged, and no rationale given by the closer. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, at first glance that looks like a poor close and the fact that it was made by a non-admin does compound it. However, I'd suggest asking for an explanation at the closer's talk page. If the response is unsatisfactory, come back here and we'll see how to proceed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've asked for an explanation or a status quo ante bellum reopening. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Backlogged straightforwarward closes
Please see []. In waiting for an admin to close and move the move protected page, a once contested discussion has evolved into a large unaniminity. This is embarrassing to the project. I suggest a separate listing for backlogged straightforward closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The backlog seems to be more a function of the number of people working on moves than whether or not the individual closes are difficult. You can always tag a page as db-g6 if the close is uncontroversial, and see if someone working on deletion will perform the cleanup or remove the barrier to completing the move. I don't know about saying that it's "embarrassing to the project"--we should be appreciative of everything that gets done here due to the choices of editors to contribute. Dekimasu よ! 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Template messages/Moving
One of the updates to WP:Template messages/Moving made that page get picked up by the bot... so can someone fix whatever's causing that? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm working on updating the documentation.  Will find a solution.  Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)  Wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:move notice
I have removed mention of move notice from the section Requesting a single page move in line with the discussion depreciating it at wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 38.

The empirical evidence for the confusion that having two similar templates without similar functionality can be seen in the move requests I have recently initiated moves using requested move that are now listed on this page, which were listed as requests using the movenotice. Before my listings some had laid moribund for 3/4 of a year. It is obvious from this backlog that movenotice is not noticed by many editors and is not worth the confusion it generates.

I have left the move notice in place for the moment in the section Requesting multiple page moves because we do need to advertise multi moves on the affected pages. But it is my intention to alter the template to indicate that it should be used at the top of the talk pages of articles that considered to be part of a multi move. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Multi-moves are advertised on the affected pages. Examples: Talk:The Cost (disambiguation), Talk:Genesis flood narrative, Talk:List of FA Cup winners, Talk:List of FA Trophy winners, Talk:List of FA Vase winners, Talk:List of Scottish Cup winners, Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners, etc. etc.
 * These notices are never automatically removed. For example, Talk:Malabon. There may be some benefit in keeping these notices around, as they may provide a link to archived discussions. There is currently no template used to post these messages, and there is no category for pages containing these messages.  I suppose a template or category could be used if that is helpful, but there is nothing that would prevent a human user from using the template too, or manually categorizing any page they wanted to put in such a category.  The only way to find these pages now is to do a global search of talk pages, such as this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not know (hadn't noticed/read) that the bot automatically generated the sections. As it does, I think that is a better solution than adding and removing templates :-) In which case the advise about move notice for multi-page moves can be removed. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree documentation needs updated, and that's kind of been on the back-burner of my to-do list. I should point out that this particular bot function is exclusion compliant, meaning that an editor who does not want this message posted on a particular talk page can tag the page with the nobots template, and RMCD bot will respect the template.  Not sure if there's a good reason for anyone to take advantage of that feature, but it's there.  I think you're on the right track with move notice. I picked up the dropped ball for Battles (band), and am happy to see someone else working on clearing that "backlog". – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the bot should add "move notice" to the advisement section of the other talk page for multimoves, and remove the template when the discussion has been closed, leaving only the section text. This would indicate an active discussion. Further, all the article pages should also have the template auto-added and auto-removed by the bot. This would turn the template into a bot-only template. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Move Notice at TFD
I've gone ahead and nominated the Movenotice template for deletion here. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The outcome was delete -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Move Notice at VP Policy
See Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 99, where another discussion has been opened. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

On watchlist?
Why does only the talkpage of this page, appear on one's watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not. The main page is on my watchlist this moment. However, the main page is rarely changed. The apparent changes are actually done at Requested moves/Current discussions and are only transcluded, i.e. they do not change the page in the database. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) This page works by Wikipedia:Transclusion various sub pages, edits to the actual page are rare. If you wanted to keep track of new requested moves then you would need to add Requested moves/Technical requests, Requested moves/Controversial and Requested moves/Current discussions to your watchlist.--Salix (talk): 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may also need to show edits by bots in your watchlist as well. If bot edits are hidden, you won't see many changes on your watchlist. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos
Can someone look at Talk:Tenedos ? Something weird is going on, since a new RM request appeared in an archived RFC section -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. There is a bit of an edit war going on over whether the closure was valid or not. In the midst of the un-closing and re-closing, the tag re-appeared and wasn't subsequently removed. I hope the edit war ceases; the discussion needs to take place on the closing admin's talk page or at WP:Move review.--Aervanath (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And it currently is: Move_review/Log/2012_September_13.--Aervanath (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that there is no instruction here for the closing person to have done any kind of thorough investigation. Administrators just sort of scan it for any sign of consensus, and, finding none, close, giving information in the edit summary that betrays they don't understand important facts and giving a sort of head-count of dispute participants even though WP:NOTAVOTE states that they are supposed to take into account the strenth of arguments, only, and without asking any questions or checking to make sure that their understandings are correct.  In order to come to the correct decision, the adminstrator should be sure to do a thorough investication first, or we will have cases like this. Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can non-admins relist?
I don't see why not, but I thought I'd ask. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not either. Excepting, of course, editors who are involved in some way. --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Any situation where a judgement call needs to be made shouldn't be made by a non-admin. If a relist call is made when the situation could reasonably be closed as a move or not moved then a non-admin shouldn't be making it. Non-admins should only act when the situations is 100% obvious one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many non-admins also have good judgement. The only advantage an admin has is that they were chosen to be admins because of their demonstrated good judgement. Difficult decisions are more easily left to admins for that built in credibility reason, but there is no rule that non-admins can not exhibit good judgement - and exercise it. Most of the time the axiom of leaving difficult situations to an admin applies, but not always. Apteva (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But perhaps old discussions with one or no votes could be considered "100% obvious" cases for relisting, I would think? --BDD (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As an admin if there are no votes in it then I would consider it not-controversial and move it personally as opposed to relist. This isn't Afd where relisting to get a better idea is definitely needed since any editor can move an article. But doing such as a non-admin might be considered a controversial close. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. I wish there were more clarity in that area. See the "Backlog" section above. As that title suggests, more editors could help manage this backlog with better defined procedures for such RMs. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes please, the more editors helping out the better. I made plenty of relists as a non-admin and can't recall it ever being a problem. The only thing to really watch out for is, unlike AfD, we don't relist simply because after a week the nom is the only one to participate – most of the time admins will just close them as moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If they do it appropriately, then of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO, one of the issues that contributes to the backlog in RM, is that there are RMs where the listing rationale and/or the discussion itself provides no clear indication of what should be done. Relisting doesn't solve that, it just delays the RM reaching the backlog again.  RMs with zero discussion (and poor rationale) are sometimes difficult because one must ask the question, is the alternative title really appropriate?  The hardest RMs to close are those where a move is warranted, but there are multiple suggestions for the new title (many times without any real discussion/consensus to distinquish which title should be chosen.  I have no objection with a non-admin relisting an RM, but it probably isn't going to get closed until it hits the backlog again.  RM backlog is merely a symptom of a bigger issue, that of an undisciplined RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike on this. Relisting as a means of addressing the backlog problem is merely a cosmetic. The backlog is there because many move discussions are contentious and the closing admin has to be willing to address questions and comments well after the close. Real life issues can make this difficult. I know that I try to close only 2-3 at a time for this reason. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing because it does force admins to be more careful in their closes and backlogged requests do ultimately get addressed. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple requests on one page?
Can we have 2 parallel different move requests on one talk page? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 13:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the example at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, where there are currently two move discussions open:
 * Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
 * Requested moves/Current discussions
 * Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia


 * The second proposal was entered as an untagged new section followed by an edit to post the tag  Wbm1058 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Multiple move suggestions should be consolidated into one section with one move template, which can leave the suggested move blank - and in the section list out the multiple proposals. See next section about verbosity also. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will ask for some admin to close second request then. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Any editor can do that. Apteva (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking to G6
There has been misuse in the past of G6 to move articles without RMs, or even counter RMs. Would it be possible for the G6 list, Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion to be linked on the page here so Users can easily click through to it and see if moves are being accomplished using G6? (I don't really understand why this way of circumventing RM even exists) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The history: G6 was the original way to request moves which needed admin help. Non-admins can still use it to implement moves which need admin tools to go through. Before admins started paying attention to this page, almost all requested move discussions were evaluated by non-admins, who used G6 to get admin help when needed. As to its use or mis-use now, I couldn't say.--Aervanath (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of links in the section Requested moves/Technical requests:
 * Pages transcluding
 * Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion
 * The transclusions link may show pages with malformed db-move requests (i.e., page to be moved and/or reason for move missing). Malformed db-move requests are not included in categories Candidates for speedy deletion and Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion-- the latter category is a subset of the former ( -tagged pages are put in both categories). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wbm1058, many thanks for this. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests made by an editor
Is there any way to find move requests made by an editor? It'll be helpful for me to track those later!--Tito Dutta ✉ 05:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actual completed moves, sure. Look up their Move log.  Finding current or archived move requests is a bit harder.  You can try a talk page search, but that would include discussions participated in as well as initiated. -- Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings, for the search result I am getting bunch of other discussions where I did not request but posted opinion! Can someone create a tool like AFD vote count? Possible? --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it's possible to write pattern-matching code that distinguishes between requests and "votes". I believe you're referring to the AfD Statistics Tool.  Its author User:Scottywong has written a number of similar tools. You might want to ask on his talk page if he could write a tool to do this.  Wbm1058 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested to create a tool! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not practically possible. I assume you're asking for a tool that will show you every time you have substed a move template on a talk page?  That would require the tool to download every edit you've ever made to an article talk page, as well as the revision directly before all of your edits, so that it can tell whether you added the move template, or if it was already there when you made your edit.  If you have 1000 edits to article talk pages, that means downloading 2000 revisions, which would take forever and monopolize too many server resources.  This isn't something that's very well suited for a toolserver tool.  -Scottywong | chatter _  16:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Which procedure for new, non-confirmed, users?
"Thirdly, unregistered users and new (non-confirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process." Using this process? Which one do you mean? --Diggan (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick search, it shows, you have copied the portion from WP:RM page. So, they mean RM by that process, I think! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or if you are trying to follow the process and can not understand where to start, start reading from here: Requested_moves. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Back up a little. The first question is "which one?" So the answer is that there are two possibilities. If it is a non-controversial move, the instructions are in that section: WP:RM. If it is potentially controversial, then the instructions in Requesting a single page move apply. Apteva (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A question regarding multimoves
Yesterday I committed a minor gaffe here by posting a multimove request for Sakuradamon incident (1860) to be moved to Sakuradamon Incident, and for the article currently located at that title to be moved to Sakuradamon Incident (1932). In my haste, it did not occur to me to check if any article currently existed at Sakuradamon Incident (1932), and only realized now that none does. Would it have been a better idea for me to just move the latter article myself and replace the resulting redirect page with the content from Sakuradamon incident (1860)? What should I do now? Will the bot organizing these moves just do as I request regardless? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first part and no to the second part. Cut and paste moves lose the page history which is very important, so if a move can not be done, it can be requested in the technical moves section, and an admin will perform the move, retaining the page history. Apteva (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstate WT:RMCI
I propose that discussions relating directly to editing the text of Requested moves/Closing instructions aka WP:RMCI be conducted at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closing instructions. That page currently redirects here (apparently, as decided by a two-day active IP on 11 November 2009‎). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many talk pages. I would prefer limiting to two - one for WP:MRV, one for WP:RM. Apteva (talk)
 * Exactly the right number of talk pages. Whenever an editor has a topic relating to just WP:RMCI, they should WP:BOLDly edit the redirect and turn it into a talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing malformed requests
One of the maintenance functions that I have been doing is editing any long or missing summaries on WP:RM by adding – (see talk page) and copying the signature of the proposer so that it will appear on WP:RM. If the summary is long and has an obvious introductory sentence I have been keeping that sentence by inserting a duplicate sig after it, and adding a newline. Once in a very great while I have had editors complaining about changing their edit, and have not pushed the issue. I think it helps to use a clear edit summary such as "split summary for display on WP:RM". WP:RM will still function with one entry that has 50 lines, but functions best with very short summaries. After some trial and error of trying to get missing signatures to show up, what the bot is parsing from is the dash – see above just before "(see talk page)", to (UTC), so both those – and (UTC) need to be present. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the existence of a talk page for RMCI. You should stop editing other peoples' statements (but I've told you that before) -- that's not a "maintenance function". If you're unhappy with a proposal's introduction, suggest changes to the OP and let them make any changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't work out what his post had to do with this section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to put in the section heading. Normally talk page edits do not get refracted, and in the case of move requests where someone forgets to put in the new name, accidentally putting in the old name for example, or obviously misspelling the new name, asking the proposer, either on their talk page or on the article talk page is warranted, but some fix ups are more easily just done, with or without comment - but I always make sure I use an edit summary that explains what why and who. As JHunterJ pointed out, insisting on refracting someones post over their complaint is not permitted, which is why I never push back - if someone objects, that is the end of it - either they fix it or it stays the way it is. Of those two, the first one was shortened to (see talk page), the second remained as is. A lot of requests forget to capitalize the first letter of the title, and fixing those still warrant at least a comment, I would think. There are title moves that the question is about capitalization, but those do not involve an actual move and do not get discussed here. Apteva (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure template
I've created a template for non-admin closures of RMs. I basically cloned nac with directions to the RM NAC guidelines instead of Non-admin closure, which chiefly deals with AfD. The new template is RMnac, so feel free to proof my work on it. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RMinc
template:RMinc has been nominated for deletion. What template replaced this, since it says its deprecated. So how do you inform someone that their speedy rename was contested? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone places a move request in "uncontested", and it is contested, simply delete it from there and (carefully) add it to the "contested" section. From there it will either disappear or result in an RM being created on the article talk page. There is no obligation or requirement to notify the nominator. It is the nominators obligation to monitor the process and if the move does not take place or it is contested and no one else opened the RM, open an RM. Some of the regulars open RM's when clearing out the contested section, but it is not clear that that is required. The bot does the rest. There is no need for the template. See Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 20. Apteva (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See:
 * {{subst:RMcontested}}
 * Template messages/Moving
 * WP:RM/TR
 * – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral controversial move today without RM process
Discussed started here: Talk:Cleveland_Heights,_Ohio. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion may be of interest
Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241 may be interest, particularly to RM closers. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That discussion has now been archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241, with no support for the speedy deletion of generated talk page redirects. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Section "Undoing a move" lacking instructions for technical request.

 *  Moving this section from Wikipedia talk:Moving a page which was evidently not the correct venue, not sure this is the correct venue either In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This relates to Christ (yes seriously, not exactly a low profile page). The wasteful example of a needless RM there now illustrates a weakness in "Undoing a move" section here - it doesn't address specifically what to do if (inadvertently in the case of the Christ move) the mover has "locked" the redirect by editing it. I suggest we add in something better than "Move page B to page A" i.e. directions and link as to how/where to submit a technical restore here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Does this page have any bearing as a policy or guideline? Does not seem to. So where is the actual policy/guideline about page moves? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I request a mass page move?
I have a list of 800 pages which I want moved, in a way which I think will be uncontroversial. A week or two back I asked at WP:BOTREQ a bot to do it, and was told that an RM was needed first ... but I see that multi-listed RMs can take only 30 pages at a time.

That would mean at least 27 separate RMs on exactly the same issue, which seems like a really bad idea. How should I go about seeking consensus?

A discussion at the WikiProject? An RFC somewhere? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would pick a convenient WikiProject to make a main post at and then leave notices at the relevant other WikiProjects/RM/elsewhere as you see fit. It would be very silly to make that many RMs... I'm highly doubtful that 800 page won't be controversial in nature, in some way or another, but that's just me. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A mass move RM does not need to explicitly list every page. Often one or a couple are listed and then it is indicated that there are others. Apteva (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest choosing up to 30 of the most representative examples, perhaps the ones drawing the most traffic if you know or can guess which, and submit an RM for those. Mention in your reason for move that there are several hundred others.  If you can link to a (more) complete list, please do.  If your RM for the most noteworthy examples is approved, then the others should be able to be moved non-controversially, either manually or by a bot. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, because it allows at least a sample of these moves to be considered through the widely-scrutinised RM process. That seems like the best way of ensuring that any consensus reached is stable. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop! Please don't! One is sufficient. Since they are all identical it only needs one example. Pick one and indicate that there are 800 more just like that one. Apteva (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have 3 different editors giving me different advice, so I have to choose between them. I reckon that the best compromise between these options is to select a small set covering a diverse range, so that it triggers lots of different article alerts sets.
 * What I have done is to create a sample of 14 pages, relating to 14 different countries. I will now list it as one group nomination, with a link to the complete list. I hope this will be OK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A reasonable compromise. I just did not want to flood the page with, or make someone create a template with 33 entries. The reason we allow up to 33 is for cases where there are only 33 pages to be moved, with all of them listed. It is not so that if there are 850, they can be listed in blocks of 33. It was expanded when more than fit were to be moved, and 33 was chosen as a reasonable limit that might include many of the multi-moves. While it can be used three times for 99 pages, that really unnecessarily floods WP:RM, and takes more work than is needed to put together, and worse, it splits the discussion into three places. Apteva (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If they are all identical in the key respect motivating the move, then it shouldn't matter if there are three or five examples. But I think there ought to be more than one 'typical example', to at least illustrate the commonality. But please pay attention to ensure that they are all identical in the key respect, otherwise the RM will end in a WP:TRAINWRECK and you will have to submit them individually or in smaller groupings of genuinely similar articles. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking to G6 (part 2)
See the section above "There has been misuse in the past of G6 to move articles without RMs, or even counter RMs." Today I see a bio which was previously edit warred over the nationality (and therefore name) of the subject moved by cut and paste move (and reverted) in 2011, had a db-G6 placed on the redirect, and a db-G6 admin came along and made the move without looking at the Talk page on article or the Talk page on redirect where the previous cut and paste move and revert were discussed and did it anyway. Now
 * the history of placement of the db-G6 is gone from the history of redirect (now the article)
 * the history of placement of the db-G6 is gone from the history of User who placed it
 * the Talk page content on Talk:Redirect objecting to cut and paste move is gone from history
 * any indication of a db-g6 admin speedy delete is gone
 * any indication of which db-g6 admin did it is gone

Evidently db-g6 is wide open to abuse. Why should anyone bother with WP:RM when we have db-g6 system to circumvent WP:RM, and db-g6 will succeed even with evidently controversial moves where there is Talk content on both pages documenting previous edit-warring and cut-and-paste move warring history? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the only problem with CSD:G6 at present. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. The problem appears to be that the drop-down menu in the dialogue does not match the criteria at WP:CSD. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes 3 problems. I added a note there. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of target talk pages
From Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion:

''...if a talk page exists at the target, the current move dialogue doesn't allow the option of deleting the talk page. If you haven't deleted the talk page in preparation for the move, you then need to move the talk page separately. This is cumbersome either way.''

If the move dialogue allows an admin to delete the target article by simply checking a box, it should surely allow a similar option for the target talk page, whose history is far less important.

Alternatively there could be a delete dialogue line giving a CSD rationale specifically for this scenario, but a check box in the move dialogue is far better.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Do a thorough investigation before closing
This should say that no administrator should close any thread without first conducting a thorough investigation. If he or she can not do a thorough investigation, he or she should do nothing. Uninformed or misinformed closings should not happen. Unless the administrator understands the issues, he or she should not close. Chrisrus (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A thorough investigation of what, beyond the move discussion? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The facts of the case. The appropriate policies and guidelines.  The arguements being made. Chrisrus (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The "facts of the case" are usually in short supply, as opposed to the opinions and arguments of the participants. We could say something like "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities" (cribbed from WP:NOTPERFECT), but there's nothing specific to the RM process here that I can see. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If one cannot determine the important facts of a case, one should not close. They could state that they could not close because they lacked certain key important facts which could not be determined.  When looking at a dispute, it may seem that the participants agree about nothing, because the points where they disagree are the focus of attention.  One needs to investicate at times to find out what facts are in dispute and which are not in dispute, and whether claims to fact check out or not. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [I drafted this before the above responses, so this is a question based on your original post] Chrisrus, if there was consensus to add the language you suggest, I'd like to know how you (or the community) would know if an RM closer had not thoroughly investigated the RM before closing. Please address this generically, and do not bias your answers with specific article situations.  Specifically what does thoroughly investigate entail?  How should the RM closer investigate situations where supporters and opposers use the same evidence but come to different conclusions?  This is a fairly common occurrence with Primaryname and Commonname.  How does an RM closer investigate situations where supporters and closers are interpreting WP:title, MOS and naming conventions differently, especially where there is a history of limited or no consensus around some particular guideline? Diacritics, capitalization and disambiguation are common stumbling blocks here. How does an RM closer investigate situations where some participants claim that some part of our title policy, MOS and naming conventions trump other parts of policy and other participant’s interpretations are wrong?  How do you investigate situations where some participants say a particular source is reliable but others claim it isn't?   You suggest that RM closers should not close an RM if they are uninformed.  Please describe how you would determine that an RM closer was uninformed when they made the RM decision?  The implication of the language you suggest is that there would be some admonition or penalty if an Administrator made an uninformed decision, so it would useful to examine how that might be determined before we add the language. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before closing, one should ask quesions such as "You seem to be arguing X", is that correct?", or "On point of fact, what was the price of rice in China in 1942?" or whatever other points of fact that should be needed to arrive at an informed decision. One might find it necessary to ask "Is there any disagreement about point of fact X?" "At this point, I am leaning toward decision X based on line of reasoning Y, why wouldn't this line of reasoning be valid?"  "On point of fact, what was the reason that decision X was made in the first place?"  Doing this demonstrates to everyone that you are making a good faith effort to make a thorough investigation.  I can point you to an investigation of mine which I feel would be a good example, but you may know of a good example you'd like to provide.  On the contrary, making demonstrably false or misinformed statements on closing would be a good sign that an uninformed decision had been made.  Closers should be careful not to write edit summaries and such on closing that betray that they have a less than good understanding of the facts and reasoning of the case. Chrisrus (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that an RM closer engage participants in the discussion with questions. First, wouldn't that then make the RM closer involved and thus preclude them from closing.  Additionally, what if the prospective closer did engage Particpant A with a question, but participant B decided to respond with a completely different position. What happens when the prospective closer asked participant C a question and there is no response?  How long does the prospective closer wait for an answer.  What if another closer comes by and closes the discussion?  I don't think you understand the RM closing process very well.  The prospective closer reads the discussion and makes a decision based on an appropriate balance of the consensus (or lack of) in the discussion and the policy/guideline arguments being made along with whatever evidence is presented. The prospective closer may have been following the discussion since it opened and just chose this particular time to close the discussion. You seem to be asking for irrefutable evidence that the closer did in fact act in an "informed" manner but have failed to explain how that would happen.  On the edit summary, indeed good advice, although language more suited to an essay, rather than closing instructions. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific examples where, in your opinion, a sufficiently thorough investigation was not done?


 * We already have some trouble keeping the backlog of RM under control. As one of the admins who spend a lot of time doing investigations (which I would hope are already thorough) to close RMs, I'm skeptical that this proposal will improve Wikipedia. Interested in evidence of, dare I say, a thorough investigation on which such a proposal might be based. (-> Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

General instructions remain while details are added
You are right that it should say more than simply “do a good investigation before closing”. It should detail and explain what should be done. Deleting the new section, however, is making the "even better" the enemy of "the good". Please do add to and detail what arriving at an informed decision would entail. Please do not delete the general instruction that a thorough investigation be made before closing. I hope you will restore that section soon, and I inform that I will re-do it after a reasonable period of time. This discussion above as to what else it should say may proceed while the general instruction remains. Chrisrus (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we need to add a new section when the section Determining Consensus covers the responsibilities of the RM closer in making the RM decision. What purpose does a duplicate and possibly conflicting section serve? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. It is impossible to provide detailed instructions that cover every case, and the fact that we now have a move review process makes it easy to discuss any errors that might have occurred. If someone finds most of their closes ending up at WP:MRV, that could indicate a need for that editor to review their procedures, but I would categorize this proposal as WP:CREEP, and a solution in search of a problem. But seriously, is anyone looking at WP:MRV? Yikatong has been there for 10 days, despite "A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days." And despite the fact that it was a six year old RM, that has now a new RM, obviating the need for any MRV. Apteva (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot considerations (closing instructions)

 * 1) I am not sure there is still a section for items the bot can not parse.
 * Yes there is a "Time can not be ascertained" section. Oddly it seems to only used if there are delimiters like an asterisk at the beginning of the line. The bot ignores all formatting commands, like tables and asterisks, and puts everything onto one line. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) My preference instead of using five tildas to create a date stamp is to look at the history and copy and paste the time signature after the unsigned template. I think if the bot sees the word relisted it uses the second (UTC).
 * 2) If there is no endash for whatever reason - usually because it is deleted, but sometimes because it gets changed into a hyphen, there will be no summary at WP:RM. The bot parses the line and puts everything from the endash to the (UTC) at WP:RM. The solution is to simply copy the endash from WP:RM and put it right after the new title on the talk page. Apteva (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD and RM
I seem to remember this somewhere but I was unable to find it. Currently the article Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy → 2012 Election (US) Republican party's comments about rape is discussed, as well as an AfD. Does it make sense to procedurally simply delete the RM template, or visibly comment it out - "restore when AfD closes" until the AfC closes? Or should both proceed and if the RM is closed make a note "Result move to xyz after the AfD closes." And somehow hope that this will happen after the AfC closes? Apteva (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure of talk page entries for a multi-move request?
When a multi-move request is approved, should a bot be closing the entries that were placed on all of the talk pages? Cf. Omega1 Aquarii. Just curious; it seems odd to leave inquiry messages dangling out there. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think most people who see them will look at the timestamp and realise the RM has probably been closed by now. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If we can get the damn bot ever working again, I think it's not a bad idea that it leaves a terse note like:
 * Automated note: the discussion has been closed.--User:RM bot 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I did in the past before we ever had a bot, and do now that we're manually updating. I don't think it's a pressing issue though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A note to optionally do this (leave a terse note) could be added to Requested moves/Closing instructions, along with the notes to update or add Oldmoves, Old RM multi or Oldmove. There is no transcluded template or category flagging these messages, so once the RM is closed it would be hard for a bot to find them. The closing instructions are getting pretty complicated, so a possibility would be to see if a new program could be created to assist this closing process. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a second move after admin db-g6 self-revert
Another loophole in the db-g6 system. I've seen at least twice that when a user requests a db-g6 to make a controversial move, and the db-g6 admin is then informed by other users that is was not uncontroversial and self-reverts, this leaves the db-g6 article completely open to being moved straight back after the admin has left the page. Perhaps there should be a housekeeping rule to redirect-edit-lock such db-g6 self-reverts? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See history, exactly what I described above just happened yet again:
 * (cur | prev) 22:51, 13 November 2012‎ Amatulic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (Undid revision 522897382 by Film Fan (talk) - if anything, the disambiguation page should have this name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 22:33, 13 November 2012‎ Film Fan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Starlet (film)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 19:23, 13 November 2012‎ Amatulic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (Decline CSD G6 as controversial - the film is not the primary meaning of the term.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:45, 12 November 2012‎ Film Fan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96 bytes) (+57)‎ . . (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 21:44, 12 November 2012‎ Film Fan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (Film Fan moved page Starlet to Starlet (disambiguation) over redirect: Starlet (film) moving here). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also known as gaming the system. Report the move to WP:AN, move it back, or open an RM. The user can also be reported to AN/I. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Apteva, I don't care about this particular article, the problem isn't the user - there are difficult users, crafty users and just newbies, the problem is the db-g6 system has apparently no safeguards, db-g6 doesn't have a visible 7-day listing like RM that other users can check, some db-g6 admins (though obviously not Amatulic above) seem to be out of touch with what is and isn't controversial on WP:RM, and db-g6 covers the user's tracks. Is this the intended purpose of the db-g6? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Question at FAC
In Featured article candidates/13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)/archive1, please see the discussion at "I can't think of another FA that gives three different ways of describing the same thing in the page title" ... and I can't. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Who obeys these requests?

 * Who except me obeys the obstructed move requests in Requested moves/Technical requests? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obeys? Huh? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, is this the same as the db-g6 problems noted above? ...it's a difficult question to answer because Requested moves/Technical requests seems to have the same problem as db-g6 (is it in fact the same beastie or a second different loophole round RM?), but I've noticed you obeying the objections - without you mentioning it here, which makes me wonder why I haven't noticed many others? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry :: but I seemed to be getting all the work, including wading through a batch of about 60 move requests about bats.
 * If a request looks at all queryable, I change it into a discussed move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "obeys" or "getting all the work" parts still. Is there a mechanism for assigning the obstructed move requests to admins? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I look at Requested moves each day and see what move requests are in it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like any Admin task, each admin just picks whatever they want. There are relatively few admins who pay attention to WP:RM, but with the current backlog we could use some more right now. Apteva (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

date categorization?
Since the bot is down, how about amending the substitution to include a date, and a dated category? WP:PROD has a bot listing and also has a dated organization (see WP:PRODSUM and CAT:PROD). Then new requested moves can be found by day of entry. People manually updating the list can also just look at the newest day, instead of all requests to figure out what's new. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just look at the Category:Requested moves, and the new ones are blue. There are only about 200 now, and I believe we have all of them listed. What I am trying to do is make sure I pick up all the new ones at least once a day. What is more important is for closers to note that the bot is down, so they have to be deleted manually from WP:RM. Apteva (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving content to new article and redirecting article
Not sure if this is something I'd need permission for so tell me if it's ok if I do this myself. It could be controversial, but since it's not technically a move, just thought this was best place to get advice. (So tell me if there are any policy or technical problems with my doing it around Tuesday or so if no other comments on talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per: Talk:Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict The content of 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties timeline was merged into Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict on August 08, 2012. However, 95% of the article is just a listing of Israeli-Gaza-related casualties from 2006-2008.
 * A lot of articles have see also to this article here and people must be very confused by what they find.
 * I've proposed at Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israel–Gaza_conflict creating an article called Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006-2008 and moving article's content and talk page there, and then redirecting Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict to Gaza-Israel_conflict which is a timeline of relevant events. The article doesn't get a lot of traffic so I may not get a response there.
 * This is an insanely contentious area, so before doing anything drastic, I suggest seeking comment at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. I'd suggest creating a discussion section at the Timeline article and invite Wikiproject participants to comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Since I haven't seen much response on any issues lately on Collaboration/Palestine, I didn't think of it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(c) Blocking a third move after admin db-g6 self-revert and lock
In relation to item above, newly observed a third method, (c), namely: having had a db-G6 reverted and locked by 1 admin as "not an uncontroversial move as claimed", and reverting admin locking the redirect (deliberately or otherwise) the user determined to avoid a WP:RM can simply put it back in as a second db-G6 on the Talk page of the redirect instead, and have a different admin delete the redirect to clear the way for the User to proceed as a 2nd uncontroversial move. Since the Talk page of the redirect may has none of the history of the previous controversy and the refusal/revert of a previous db-G6 by another admin the move can still be acheived by the persistent gamer.

I truly appreciate that the very few admins who work on G6 are extremely overworked and underthanked, but the way the system is set up has some sizeable loopholes exist which a determined gamer can find, and have several bites of the cherry at each loophole. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request template not working
I'm trying to do the move request at AT&T shown below:

It keeps giving me an error that the current1 must be AT&T (which it is). Could the "&" be screwing things up? Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That happened to me on a page, I gave up and used single move requests. See Template talk:Move-multi. Try omitting current1 and starting with current2. Apteva (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "&" isn't handled properly. It's . Please omit parameter current1 as a workaround—this parameter is not necessary. I'll update the template documentation to warn about this. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot stopped
Any way to get the User:RMCD bot running? User:Wbm1058 has not edited in almost a week. The bot appears to have stopped at 00:00 20 November. Apteva (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A replacement bot is getting approval now. Apteva (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Go out of town for a while and Murphy's Law bites you. Something went wrong on my machine.  I'm back and my bot is running again. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Move reviews are stalled
As I noted at Wikipedia talk:Move review, reviews are stalled; probably because few editors watch there, or because the activity is on sub-pages so doesn't show up on watch lists; so I'm inviting those who care about moves to take a look at reviews. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Multimove error
Can someone see what's broken with the multimove template? It's broken when trying to do the request at Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki breaks the template when the page title contains an apostrophe. Please omit parameter current1 as a workaround—it's optional and not necessary. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this means, leave current1 = blank (current1= |new1=Newname). The template will pick up the name of the article from the page name. Apteva (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between putting |current1= | in the template and not putting it there, just as there is no need for |current27= | when you're not requesting that 27 pages be moved. Yes, the name is picked up from the name of the page where the template is written, just as {{subst:requested move}} doesn't need to be told what page is proposed to be moved. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Great Recession
A few weeks ago I made a proposal to move 2008–2012 global recession to Great Recession. It looks like this move request is no longer listed on this page. My guess is that the bot removed it when others reformatted the multiple proposals into various discussions. I think there is now a consensus to move based on the original discussion (Talk:2008%E2%80%932012_global_recession) and poll that was taken more recently. Can someone make the move or do I have to make another proposal?--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found where |the bot removed this listing. Another user relabeled the headline. The discussion was never closed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that's just where someone renamed the article section where the proposal was tagged.
 * This is the edit where the bot removed the listing (after someone removed the requested move/dated tag from the talk page). I've sorted it out for you. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Without checking, I probably removed the RM template, because there is an RfC open in that section. It is pointless and redundant to have an RM and an RfC, and the RfC takes precedence because it stays open for a month and the RM gets closed in a week, which, if closed, would short circuit the RfC. So I would recommend removing the RM template, and at the end of the RfC move or not move the article using whatever means needed - the closing admin can perform the move, or it can be added to the technical requests section, but a new RM should not be opened because the issue has already been settled, and the purpose of RM is to open discussion. If you want a pretty template that announces the discussion, I am sure that one can be added, but the requested move/dated one is not the correct one to use. Apteva (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that an established policy: that a RM can't close if someone makes an RfC? My understanding is that RfCs are informal while the RM is a formal process and should take precedence. Plus, all one would have to do to drag out an RM is put in an RfC. The editor who made the RfC already requested to close the RM (Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure), so I don't think he would mind. Little discussion has happened after a couple weeks after a very thorough discussion. I think it's time to carry out the move.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure others will have views on this but technically both RM and RfC are formal ways of asking for discussion. One lasts a week the other a month, but both can be closed early if warranted. So I do not see that either is any more or less formal than the other. Both are certainly optional. Last I checked the thread was showing closed, and a request was made at WP:AN, which resulted in instructions on what to do. Someone tried to reopen the RM and in an edit summary was asked to take it to MRV, which may have been missed. Apteva (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure
These two edits are a bit heavy handed. here and here. As a non-admin who has closed many discussions I see no reason for saying that no non-admin can close RM's and request that the latter change in particular be reverted. The word "must" really has little to no place on wikipedia. To give a little history I can remember a year when most of the RM's were closed by a non-admin. I would propose the original sentence "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to moves:" Apteva (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing instructions – Bot considerations – update
The Requested moves/Closing instructions Malformed requests instructions regarding failure to substitute the template are no longer accurate. When an editor fails to subst: the move template, this is an example of what they see. Pages with this message are not included in category:requested moves, nor are they noticed by user:RMCD bot, because they don't transclude requested move/dated. These requests will not be listed in a special section on Requested moves. Generally it is up to the editor at this point to manage to figure out what to do, or find someone at the help desk to guide them. These pages however will transclude requested move—normally no page does. Occasionally I or another editor may canvass for pages transcluding requested move to mop up the errors. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also removing the second instruction: ''If the template is a bare requested move without any page specified. • In that event, try to figure out what the intended request was; otherwise, use .'' This is no longer possible either. Failure to specify a new name will by default automatically result in a "page being decided below" request, i.e., – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

R from title without diacritics and similar templates
I have left a message at User talk:Rjwilmsi:

What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't really much of a backlog for technical moves. The backlog of discussions to close doesn't really have anything to do with this issue. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of a backlog it is a matter of make work. If an editor moves a page and then makes a second edit to prevent its move back that is seen as disruptive because to make a change involves extra work as an ordinary editor has to make a request and an administrator has to action it. This type of auto-tagging of redirects is also disruptive because it prevents an ordinary editor from moving the page without asking for administrator assistance. -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One year anniversary of title restored to original Yogurt - Lessons learned
One year ago, after over eight years of controversy about the title of Yoghurt, seemingly endless debate, and a strong resistance to change, consensus was finally convinced to restore the original title of that article, Yogurt. As was predicted, as a result, nothing but peace regarding that article's title has ensued since, because no good reason in policy, guidelines or conventions exists to change the title again. Until the title was restored, the opposite situation existed. I suggest the lesson here is that when there is no consensus about whether to leave a given title at A or move it to B, instead of simply favoring the status quo, what should be considered is what effect on consensus would there be if the article was moved to B. This issue could have been resolved back in 2005 when the first formal RM was filed, on the grounds that the article should be moved back to its original location. It could have been resolved after any of the other six RM discussions that occurred after that which ended in "no consensus", if just one closing admin would have taken into account the effect on consensus of moving the article. Even though there was "no consensus" about whether to leave the article at Yoghurt or move it to Yogurt, the effect of moving the article to Yogurt would be for consensus to support that title, because there would be no policy or guideline or convention based reason to move it once it was at Yogurt. So, in situations where there appears to be no consensus, I ask all current and future closing admins to consider not only the arguments that exist for leaving or changing the title, but also what good arguments would exist if the article was moved to the proposed title. If there are good arguments on both sides, to keep at A and to move to B, but only good arguments to keep at B and no good arguments to move to A if the article is moved to B, then I suggest finding consensus to favor the move to B would be a sound finding, despite there being "no consensus" favoring or opposing the A → B move among those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, should research onuses be on the nominator? Most people seem willing to accept the principle (beware awkward wordings), but in practice it can be a bit of work to find the oldest original versions. There can be copy-paste moves, a myriad of redirects, and an oldest version that was titled with a spelling mistake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the nomination is based on returning to the original version, then, yes, the nominator should provide links/reasons supporting their position about which is the original. But usually this is not an issue - it certainly wasn't in the case of Yoghurt/Yogurt.  There was never a question there about which was the original, and that has nothing to do with the more general problem I'm raising here - that the preference the status quo is given in "no consensus" discussions is sometimes inappropriate.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except in that you seem to load the closing admin with a significant amount of work, I agree. I maintain that a root cause of the problem is the failure of the third paragraph of Requested_moves/Closing_instructions to reflect the first paragraph of WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BC I disagree, in the case of Yogurt I proposed that it be move back in the first RM (see Talk:Yogurt/Archive 1), but that does not mean it is always appropriate. If for example a page starts of on one name and in a matter of months is move to another which then remains the name for the next ten years, there all things being equal--in reliable sources and in other guidance--there is no reason why after several inconclusive RMs over several years that the name it was at for 10 years should not be retained. If the Yoghurt saga teaches anything it is that there is unlikely to be a change in consensus if a new RM is requested soon after the last one closed unless there are significant changes in sources or guidance, so requests that are made too soon after a previous one are disruptive and should be speedily closed. Same data set different conclusions :-) -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the data set does not support your conclusion. Consensus to move to Yogurt was there, and was always there. It just wasn't read properly in seven RM discussions. The point is because there were good arguments favoring the move, and no good arguments to reverse the move presuming it was moved, a well-considered reading of the situation indicated that consensus did support the restoration of the original title.  And this was true in each and every one of the eight RM discussions that were raised there, not just the last one which you tried to close prematurely.  If you had had your way the conflict would likely be ongoing today. A proper reading of consensus should not blindly default to the status quo in every apparent "no consensus" discussion.  The weight of the arguments, presuming the move occurs, should also be considered.  It's not always the case that, if the move is made, the arguments simply reverse and the corresponding weights remain the same.  If the move changes those weights, as is the case when the proposed title is the original title, that needs to be considered too.  What we have now is a situation where there is absolutely no good argument to move Yogurt to Yoghurt.  And it was obvious that that would be the case before the article was moved, when there were good arguments to keep and to move (and, thus, the apparent, but not actual, "no consensus" situation).   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're saying a completely different lesson: "consensus was there but not read correctly by the closers".  Perhaps so.  Another alternative lesson is that B2C will fight for his way for 8 years, and not stop until he gets it.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus was there but not read correctly by the closers is the same lesson. It's all because status quo is favored when it shouldn't be.  See my reply to SmokeyJoe just below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, it required way too much work by too many people (not just me) over too many years to present an argument so overwhelming that the status quo stonewallers finally gave up. It's unfortunate that that's what it took for people to realize where consensus was, and always was, about that title.  It could have all been avoided had status quo not been given undue consideration in the first and all subsequent RM discussion evaluations (none of which were initiated by me, BTW). Anyway,  it's not about getting "my way".  It's about getting titles in line with consensus, which this one finally is.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, when closing admins are evaluating arguments favoring and opposing a move, arguments amounting to "retain the status quo" ("there is no reason to move", "the situation is fine as it is", etc.) should be given zero weight. Such "Retain the status quo" arguments should only be applied to break a tie after considering arguments that are independent of the current title.  If there is no tie, one or the other title is favored by the arguments, and the status quo is irrelevant. That is, every title should initially (and, often, finally) be considered as if the article is being created right now.  What are the candidate titles, and what are the arguments favoring or opposing each?  If there is a winner among those, then that should be the title, regardless of what the title is currently.  This is all I'm suggesting, and it does not put an undue load on the closing admins to do this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And what lessons are learned from the title of Strained yoghurt, commonly known in America as Greek yogurt, which pipes its link to yoghurt? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of moving it back to "Strained yogurt". -Kai445 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)