Talk:Ralph Works Chaney

Bad move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Nnadigoodluck, that was a bad move. “Ralph Works Chaney” is the WP:COMMONNAME for this individual. Please move it back. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I don't know if you're aware, but this was requested by Utopes at WP:RM/TR. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 08:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Dmehus to chime in, since they were part of the initial conversation at WP:RM/TR. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You did the move, so you are responsible for it. I am objecting to it now. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think when implementing a WP:RM/TR, you’re supposed to permalink the request. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe and Nnadigoodluck, when I posed the question at RM/TR, I hadn't looked into what was the common name, but as I did a few searches, I quickly realized that Ralph Works Chaney is likely the common name simply because it had ~5,000 Google search results—many of them scholarly sources. Ralph Chaney had ~7,500 results, many of them for other Ralph Chaneys, so I think the original form of name is better and Ralph Chaney should be a redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:, I could not discern a reason for keeping the article at "Ralph Works Chaney", as my searches resulted in finding that the middle name was not necessarily common with this subject, i.e. they were referred to as "Ralph W. Chaney" or simply "the paleobotanist Ralph Chaney". However, as I'm sure that there was a valid reason for the article to have been titled with the middle name included, I do not object to your reversal of my request. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

However, the reason why I'm replying here is because I am rather intrigued with @Dmehus:'s response. At RM/Technical requests, there are three subsections for technical requests for moves. There is the section for technical requests deemed uncontroversial, a section for contested requests that were previously labeled as uncontroversial, and a place to revert moves that were undiscussed. According to your (Dmehus's) response here, you hadn't even looked into what the common name of the subject was, yet you (Dmehus) decided to comment for the sake of commenting. Because you didn't plan on contesting the move, and you hadn't looked into whether the move was correct or not, you had no reason to comment on the request. The only reason that I bring this up is because I feel like you (Dmehus), whether it is known to you or not, may be WP:Wikihounding me. While I am happy to answer questions on your talk page or mine, you have repeatedly brought me into discussions that I was never a part of, and now you appear to be following my contributions to reply to edits that I make. I have high confidence that your edits were in good faith, but please make sure to keep WP:Etiquette in mind. If (Dmehus) you didn't want to object to my request, especially when it was labeled as uncontroversial, then you didn't need to respond at all. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Utopes. The reason for keeping the article at Ralph Works Chaney is that the vast majority of sources introduce him by that form. Most importantly, this includes the current references. It also includes my own searches. Yes, shortened forms are used, but take care whether these are repeated naming after an already established introduction by the form "Ralph Works Chaney".

You wrote: "you hadn't even looked into what the common name of the subject was". No, I most certainly did.

"Because you didn't plan on contesting the move". I did contest the move. I did so here, pinging the page mover. The page mover is responsible for their action. My assessment is that the move should be obviously rejected as technical due to the new title not matching the existing references. I am also annoyed that the move log includes no link to any request.

"you or not, may be WP:Wikihounding me". Honestly, your username does not even look familiar to me. What pages have we both edited? The interaction tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py gives no results no evidence of interaction. I suspect that you have entirely mistaken me for someone else.

You wrote: "you have repeatedly brought me into discussions that I was never a part of" Really? Can you point to some examples?

"If you didn't want to object to my request". What request? The WP:RM/TR request that was not permalinked? I still haven't found it.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph was in response to you. The second paragraph was a response to Dmehus, not to you. Sorry for the confusion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, I just had WP:RMTR still on my watchlist from a couple moves I'd listed there, and when I see discussions from editors' whose names I recognize, I try and offer a comment. I did the same in the case of Clive (disambiguation) when I saw Crouch, Swale list a move there, and for one of Narky's move. So, it was purely coincidental. Doug Mehus T·C 00:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I assumed that the only reason that you replied to my request was because of our past interactions. While I get that was kind of was the case, your reasoning is sound, and I'm not too upset that you replied there. And hey, you ended up having the the correct gut reaction, because it ended up being a faulty move. I was just confused why you would comment on a move that was labeled as uncontroversial, (it ended up being controversial, but it wasn't clear to you at the time), especially if you didn't have a strong opinion either way. I immediately assumed you were simply following me, but it appears that I was wrong. My apologies for the needless accusation. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, Yeah, to be honest, I did give myself pause in replying because, in the past, my mere "question" (which I've not taken as opposition) has prompted some editors/administrators to create a "contested" move discussion instead. In hindsight, it might've actually been better in this case to have a full requested move discussion, in which case you would've been able to present other arguments towards moving to Ralph Chaney. WP:COMMONNAME is, frequently, cited as the reason for moving or not moving, but it is not the "be all end all," as there could be other strong arguments for moving. In future, though, if I just have a question about a move, I'll try and ask you on your talk page. At any rate, the outcome of this move was well handled, and everyone is to be commended for their collegiality and good-faith here. Nnadigoodluck, rather than refusing to re-open the move and forcing a move review, reverted the move, and this is how contested uncontroversial move requests should happen. So, everyone deserves a barnstar of collegiality/civility here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: In all honesty, I would have preferred for you to move the request to the "contested technical requests" section. Regardless of whether you were right or wrong (you would have been right), it helps progress through WP:BRD, where the act of contesting my request would have allowed for discussion. A simple non-committal comment may "look good" if you want don't want to ever be wrong; however, these types of comments do not progress discussions, and allow for Nnadigoodluck to move the page without any reason presented to keep the article at its original title. Don't be afraid to be bold, and contest the move before it happens. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, Fair point. Thank you for not taking personal any move requests listed as uncontroversial. You're right, even though if I may not have wanted to personally oppose the move (you still had sound arguments regardless of the common name), the fact that I even had a question could mean that it would've been better to have the discussion. Unless it's an innocuous procedural question I can ask you on your talk page, you're absolutely right...I should've just moved it to the "contested" requests section. Doug Mehus T·C 03:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.