Talk:Henman Hill

Correct Title?

I added tags to this article as the focus seemed to be on speculation as to whether it would be 're-nicknamed'. However on reflection, shouldn't this article be called Aorangi Terrace, with redirects from Henman Hill (and elsewhere if appropriate) and notes on the various nicknames by which it is known? This could avoid speculative entries about which nickname it may or may not acquire in the future.--Stevouk (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the relevant convention here is WP:COMMONNAME. It's called Henman Hill more often than Aorangi Terrace (a name I only just found out when I looked at this page) so the page probably should stay here unless it actually does acquire a new nickname or become commonly known by the real name. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the opening to match the Statue of Liberty page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was this page moved? Even though Tim Henman has retired, people still call it Henman Hill. Even the BBC, even when they are talking to Murray! Btline (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Aorangi Terrace", am watching a Murray match while looking for the Wikipedia article on Henman Hill... Why was it moved without concensus? - JVG (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus and Stale.

Aorangi Terrace → Henman Hill — The name of an article should be the most commonly used name. Aorangi Terrace may be the official title, but the name most commonly used is Henman Hill. Even with Andy Murray replacing Tim Henman as the British No.1, the area is still called Henman Hill in most broadcasts. Most people wouldn't know what Aorangi Terrace was, whereas almost everyone knows Henman Hill, even if they use a different name. — Philip Stevens (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Support This page was moved without consensus. It is never referred to as Aorangi Terrace. Even now Henman has retired, the BBC and other call it Henman Hill! The All England Club also refer to it as Henman Hill Btline (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support As per reasons stated by myself further up the page, and per the rest of discussion. - JVG (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, for the same reason this requested move failed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and although Aorangi Terrace is not widely known, Henman Hill is not the universally accepted name. I think the current title should remain as the colloquial name changes depending on which British player is on centre court. --Hera1187 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is untrue. It has been referred to as Henman Hill throughout this year's tournament, despite Henman not playing. Although the name does change occasionally, it comes back to Henman Hill each time. Btline (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 The reason the "Big Ben" move failed, is because "Big Ben" is not the name of the Clock, but the bell. In this case, Henman Hill is a correct name. It is therefore completely unconnected with this proposed move and should not be considered in the decision. Btline (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - using Henman Hill presents a neutrality problem because Murray (Mound/Field) is getting a rise in use - the BBC used the name Murray Mound a few times in their coverage of this year's Wimbledon. That's not counting into fact the Rusedski Ridge nickname. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment However, when Murray was not playing, the BBC reverted to Henman Hill, not Aorangi Terrace. Btline (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Could the alternate names be moved to nearer the beginning of the article, whatever the result of this discussion? Btline (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment NB, I have now given the article a better structure. Btline (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Move

This page should be moved to Henman Hill. What is Aorangi Terrace by comparison? Virtually no English people know what this is, and almost all know what Henman Hill is. Murray Mount hasn't and probably won't stick, and its usage has fallen since last year. Any g-search shows c. 30 times usage for HH as AT. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was that the article belongs at Henman Hill. As only one editor below (the filer of the move request) has argued in favor of Aorangi Terrace, I haven taken the liberty of closing this discussion a couple of days earlier than I usually would, largely due to the fact that more of the discussion has now been taken up by whether process was followed properly. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; while process is important, the outcome is more so. The consensus title for this article is clearly Henman Hill, regardless of the path it may have taken to get there. Aervanath (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Henman Hill → Aorangi Terrace — As the name of the area changes depending on which British player is on court, the official name should be the name of the page. Henman Hill may be the name which is used the most, but its usage has declined. Hera1187 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't change. In Murray's games this year it was consistently called Henman Hill. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose In the Wimbledon final, the BBC coverage continually referred to it as 'Henman Hill'. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Other than during Andy Murray's matches, NBC and ESPN used "Henman Hill" too. I never heard "Aorangi Terrace" from either. Hippo (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Even wimbledon.org uses "Henman Hill" more, 157 pages are indexed by Google vs. around 80 for "Aorangi Terrace" or "Aorangi Picnic Terrace". Only about 20 pages use variations of "Aorangi Terrace" without saying "Henman Hill". One All England Club leaflet calls Henman Hill the "Water Gardens", others use "Aorangi Terrace" for the nearby paved refreshment area. Hippo (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - still referred to most commonly as Henman Hill, or perhaps just "The Hill" now. Never heard Aorangi Terrace used, even on site. - fchd (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Henman Hill" still seems the common name. Second choice would be "Murray Mound". Aubergine (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved back

I was pretty surprised to see this move proposal on the requested move list, as I thought that it was at "Aorangi Terrace". Turns out that the page was moved back in violation of the move discussion a year ago. It seems that this issue only comes up when Wimbledon's on. I've moved it back to the status quo ante, as it's poor form to move a page unilaterally to a title that doesn't share consensus. I know there's an irony in this, but it's due process of policy more than personal preference. I've got no qualms about a discussion to move it to "Henman Hill", though. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So what happens now? Do we need to open a new requested move? Do all the opposes of moving to Aorangi Terrace now become supports of a move to Henman Hill? Does this subject even merit a stand-alone article in the first place? - fchd (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, that's insane. You can see four out of five people opposed the action you went ahead with. You're move doesn't make any sense. I'm disposed to move it back. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Process is important. The correct way to get this moved to Henman Hill, especially seeing as such a move was opposed in the past, is to open a move discussion, not unilaterally move it. Now comes the "discuss" part of the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, so the next logical step is a move discussion for a move to Henman Hill. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "process" of moving it [back] to Aorangi Terrace was ongoing and disupted by your own unilateral move [though it was a move back]. WP:RM is a mechanism for weighing consensus for a move with no basis in policy, it is not a key for unlocking the powers of Special:MovePage. If you look at an ongoing discussion which is just about unanimously opposing a move to Aorangi Terrace, you don't move the page against the emergent consensus and interrupt the discussion with a call for discussion. That's preposterous, surely? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can both say we haven't been entirely compliant with process. However, it's a common tactic on Wikipedia to take an action then try to prevent said reaction being reverted. While the second part was unintentional on your part, I still think it is more honest for there to be a consensus to move to Henman Hill, rather than a move to Henman Hill then a consensus to not move back. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with moving a page a year after a stale RM vote, nor with reverting that move (per BRD). However, it is wrong to move against unanimous [poller aside] consensus during an RM vote once that has been started, and then make a big deal about process. You should move it back and leave a note for the closer that this was recently moved and that there should be no extra weight place on the article's current location at Henman Hill. The closer won't be a robot or an idiot, and should then take that into account allaying any fears about the undue weight arising from its current but recently obtained location. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is. While consensus can change, you do that by formulating a new consensus, not ignoring the old one. Given that the Aorangi Terrace -> Henman Hill move proposal failed not so long back, it should serve as an indicator that "maybe I should double check". Unilateral moves should only be performed when such a move would be uncontroversial. Your move was not. (And to an extent, my move was too, but it is a part of the BRD process). Sceptre ^(talk) 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright ... I'm getting nowhere here. The mess you've created for this poll however needs to be sorted whether you're willing to do it or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Create a new one, I'll close the old one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)

Please don't close this poll again. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you've told me to "sort out this mess, but not in this way". I should point out that an opposition to Aorangi Terrace does not automatically equal a support of Henman Hill. Hence why I closed the poll as moot. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really serve any purpose to pursue these tendentious methods, Sceptre. All 5 opposes have stated they prefer Henman Hill. I've asked one of the regular RM closers to sort this out, and hopefully they will do so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This page really shouldn't be moved without a discussion, that's why I started the Requested move. Sceptre, if you felt the page should be called Aorangi Terrace you should have voted in the section I created (something I see you have still not done). --Hera1187 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Which is I reverted Deacon's move. Which, despite what he's alleging as "tendentious", is a valid method of dispute resolution: bold (his move), revert (my moving it back), discuss (what we're doing now). Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer Henman Hill, as Murray's skill over Henman as proven this year has evidently not changed the public consciousness regarding the terrace. However, it is important that it's done correctly. I would see a positive consensus to move to Henman Hill from Aorangi Terrace as much more honest and transparent than moving it to Henman Hill and then seeing a negative consensus for moving it back. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A comment on the requested move process

In the discussion above, there seems to be a misconception about how requested moves should be treated when they are filed in order to reverse a recent move. I will quote the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Determining_consensus:

However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. If the closing administrator feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name.

This language was arrived at after extended discussion on WT:Requested moves. Essentially what it means is: once the move request has been filed, don't further move the page. Wait for the move discussion to be closed. If there is no consensus to keep it at the page, then it will be returned to its prior title; moving the page while the request is "live" only confuses things. Even if you feel the original move was unjustified, don't worry: the discussion will be evaluated in the same way as it would have been if the request had been filed before any moves had occurred: a consensus would be required to keep it at the new name, and a "no consensus" judgment would result in the recent page move being reverted. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... didn't know about that passage. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a well-publicized guideline. It's pretty much only linked to from WP:RM itself.--Aervanath (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)