User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

WHAT IF the title was Hillary Clinton?

What if the title of this article was Hillary Clinton?

Would there be a strong policy-based argument to change the title to Hillary Rodham Clinton?

I think not. In fact, that's key to why I think the title should be changed, so that we would finally get to a stable title (Hillary Clinton) that meets policy better than any reasonable alternative (HC is better per policy than HRC simply — because HC is preferred to HRC by WP:CONCISE, and HRC is not preferred over HC by any WP:CRITERIA).

But I'm open to the possibility that I might be wrong; that there might be a strong policy-based argument to move HRC to HC. Am I wrong? What would that argument be?

Give us your best shot. --B2C 01:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

B2C, the title is stable. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sounds like a move discussion. Other policy points were mooted last time. Let's save this debate for the move review analysis of what policies were presented.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle drop the stick and back away from the horse's carcass.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Omnedon, defenders of the status quo at Yoghurt proclaimed, repeatedly, that that title was stable too. Indeed it was stable (depending on how you define "stable"), but it was never-the-less controversial. What settled that controversy was moving to a title that best met policy (ignorning TITLECHANGES because that's moot to the question of whether there is any good policy-based argument for moving A→B). If indeed HC is the title here that best meets policy, then the controversy over this article title should also be settled by changing the title to HC. So, that's a reasonable question to ask, to anyone legitimately interested in ending the controversy. --B2C 01:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a move discussion. It's a thought experiment. Yes, if no one can come up with a good policy-based argument for a hypothetical HC to HRC move proposal, that fact would be useful in a future move proposal. But this discussion in and of itself, in this section, is not in any way a move discussion. (Okay, I'm done here - but I am curious to see if anyone can meet the challenge presented here). --B2C 01:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton" is not the title used by the vast majority of reliable biographies, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is. See also other teriary sources. Is it good that all Wikipedia content follows the best sources. Anything else is dangerous WP:OR. The title is the most prominent of the content. If new editors see that titles need not follow sources, they may deduce that other content need not follow sources. All Wikipedia writers and editors should know that all content should be derived from, and influenced by, the best sources. The best sources are reputably published reliable secondary sources. Minimalist titling, such as advocated by B2C, requires deviation from following best sources, and has no benefit to readers. Following the titling used by sources has benefits of consistency and predicatability, both for readers and editors. This section is a pseudo RM discussion, and should be closed on the basis of "too soon" and because it makes no extension on previous discussions. I suggest moving this discussion to User_talk:Born2cycle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(the above moved from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton) --B2C 01:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton" is not the title used by the vast majority of reliable biographies, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is.

What is the basis for this claim, SmokeyJoe?

The List_of_books_by_or_about_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton suggests even usage in biography titles is split much closer to 50/50. "Hillary Rodham Clinton" occurs 48 times on that page, however 6 of those are not in titles, so 42 in titles. Hillary Clinton occurs in 31 titles. 42 of 73 (42+31) is 57% - that hardly constitutes a "vast majority".

Moreover, even if there was a strong majority of HRC usage in biography titles, there is no indication in consensus as reflected in policy or practice that such biography title usage should be given priority over other Reliable Source usage. So how is this a policy-based argument favoring HRC over HC at all, much less a strong one? --B2C 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The books that are "scholarly" should be up weighted as better reliable sources. The biographies are authoritative reliable sources, and should be weighted highly, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased. "Personal preference", as evidenced by how she authors her own publications, should be a consideration. News reports, running commentaries (they assume the subject is already introduced) and primary sources should be unimportant in the face of independent reliable secondary sources. Somehow, titling policy is disconnected to these principles of the project. Do you notice how when the wider community gets involved, titling policy and guidelines (and similarly MOS pages) are given little weight on the basis of what they say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, these are all assertions which reflect your personal opinion rather than community consensus as reflected in policy or practice:

"The books that are 'scholarly' should be up weighted as better reliable sources."
"The biographies are authoritative reliable sources [okay so far], and should be weighted highly^{[citation needed]}, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased".
"'Personal preference'", as evidenced by how she authors her own publications, should be a consideration."
"News reports, running commentaries (they assume the subject is already introduced) and primary sources should be unimportant in the face of independent reliable secondary sources."

Have you considered that there are good reasons for why consensus and titling policy "is disconnected to these principles ~~of the project~~?" (I recognize that these are principles, but know of no evidence that indicates they are principles of the project).

And no, I have not noticed that "titling policy and guidelines (and similarly MOS pages) are given little weight on the basis of what they say" when "when the wider community gets involved". When that happens, which often includes reliance on novel "principles" (the hallmark of which is that people rely on them only in situations where they happen to support their personal preference, and ignore them when they don't), it's almost always an emotionally charged situation for one reason or another, whether it's the defense of the h in yoghurt, etc. But that's precisely when we should be letting our policies guide us, rather than succumb to the whims of emotion.

In any case, thanks for confirming that even your argument is not a strong one based in policy. This is why a move to HC will settle the controversy over this title - as it will eliminate the possibility of any new move proposals being made per a strong policy-based argument, since at HC the article will finally be at the title best supported by policy. --B2C 22:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider you to have a flawed reading of policy and practice, skewed by your very particular mission of minimalist titling. Your pursuit of this mission has influenced documented policy, and actual practice, but rather than influencing consensus, I believe you have pushed a false consensus and created controversy.

(#2). You doubt that reliable sources should be weighted higher than unreliable sources?

I do not know if you have read anything listed at Wikipedia:Principles. Have you? "The project" means "Wikipedia", but sometimes includes Wikimedia and sister projects.

What you call "novel principles" I expect are principles that you don't understand. You would have to be more specific. In any case, that you left discussions without understanding what others stated were principles speaks to how superficially you listen to others.

You massively over-interpret the meaning of the yog(h)urt case. On the choice, there was no consensus, except that where there is no consensus, WP:RETAIN applies. It took a long time to cut through the noise.

My argument is as strong as the principle that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. You, with regards to minimalist titling, are pushing for something different, and where it conflicts with respecting reliable sources, it is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume your misunderstanding is not deliberate. No, I DON'T DOUBT THAT RELIABLE SOURCES SHOULD BE WEIGHTED HIGHER THAN UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Why on Earth would you interpret anything I said as that? Not only is that offensive, it's just being (never mind). Let me explain it to you in the simplest terms possible. Apparently that's necessary. Your #2 principle states:

"The biographies are authoritative reliable sources, and should be weighted highly, unless a case is made that they are non-independent and biased".

The clause I flagged as needing citation was:

and should be weighted highly, which is referring to authoritative reliable sources.

IN THE CONTEXT OF TITLE DECISION MAKING there is no distinction made by consensus (as reflected in policy, guidelines, and practice) between usage in "authoritative reliable sources" (your term) and other reliable sources. Your artificial separation of reliable sources, in the context of title decision-making, is novel and unprecedented. You believe usage in what you call "authoritative reliable sources" should be weighted higher than usage in other reliable sources, including "News reports, running commentaries and primary sources", which you believe "should be unimportant".

What I doubt is not that reliable sources should be weighted higher than unreliable sources. What I doubt is that, in the context of title decision-making, that usage in "authoritative reliable sources" should be weighted higher than usage in other reliable sources, like "News reports, running commentaries and primary sources" (as if news reports, running commentaries in books, journals, newspapers, and other RS, and primary sources, are not "authoritative"). I've never seen anyone else argue this in any of the hundreds if not thousands of RM discussions I have participated in, certainly not in the context of determining which title is indicated by WP:COMMONNAME.

Now, it's probably not often that usage in these two types of reliable sources indicates a different title for a given topic, so relevant cases are going to be difficult to find. But I bet much more often than not in such cases that the project favors the title indicated by usage in all reliable sources, rather than the title favored by usage in just your cherry-picked and vaguely defined "authoritative reliable sources". --B2C 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarissa Eden

I was wondering whether you were going to show up in that discussion. It took you longer than I expected. Cheers. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to give me a head's up on any RM where you'd like me to take a look. --B2C 21:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING, and there are topics on which we seem to commonly disagree. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think such comments are well protected from CANVASSING allegations by WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
...

...

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Editors who have asked to be kept informed

--B2C 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the case seems rather similar, and you asked to be kept informed, you might want to take a look at Talk:Henry Underhill, Baron Underhill#Requested move. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:B2c

Please see this remark that I left on your abbreviated Talk page. (Not a high priority.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed new section at WP:Disruptive editing reverted

Reverted undiscussed new section. This is rather ironic because the addition in itself could be seen as verging on an example of what the behavioral guideline is about. Please do not add to any policy or guideline substantial new sections without discussing on Talk page first, as the header says. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Have a good day

Been there, done that...

Morning Star Defense Award

I hereby award you this personal attack morning star to help you in fighting off those personal swipes. Awarded by: Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

I hereby request that, per WP:NPA, you not comment about contributors in a manner that may be construed as an attack (not complementary), on article and policy talk pages.

I would like to point out this clarification at WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?:

Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please note that there is no distinction made for criticisms which are accurate. That is, a criticism about personal behavior made on a policy or article talk page is a personal attack, even if it's totally accurate. There are good reasons for discouraging even accurate criticisms of personal behavior on policy and article talk pages, and I hope you understand and appreciate them. In any case, thank you for taking this into account in your own behavior in the future. --В²C ☎ 23:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Noticed your great work on trying to get the Hillary Clinton article moved to its correct title. Unfortunately I never managed to participate in the discussions and had always assumed the name "Rodham" must have been added because there was some other notable figure call "Hillary Clinton". I was shocked when I realised this wasn't the case and it's terrible to see Wikipedia readers (myself included) being deliberately confused in this way and all our policies completely disregarded for no good reason. I therefore award this Barnstar to you for attempting to improve such BLP article titles. Shakehandsman (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Acknowledging that the argument we put together for the HRC Move Review will fall on deaf ears, I'd like to note that it was great to get your input on it. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that you have registered your opinion and made your point, I see nothing to be gained through further participation in the discussion. Rather than antagonizing people, you would be better served to step back and let it run its course. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor User:Born2cycle. He just feels strongly about this issue, and it's understandable.

I get it B2C. It's frustrating when people are just talking past each other. Don't let it get you riled up though. It's not worth losing sleep over, and at the end of the day, you'll catch more flies with honey. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive RM proposals

Please stop making disruptive RM proposals which fly in the face of policy and convention. In particular, please stop proposing moving titles to disambiguated forms from base names when no other uses for the base name are covered on Wikipedia. Recent examples of your disruptive proposals include: Talk:Desideratum#Requested move, Talk:Shhh#Requested move. Talk:Results#Requested move, and Talk:Strategem#Requested move.

Even worse are your unilateral moves like this one. You might not think that moves like this are controversial, but I assure they are. --В²C ☎ 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I reply here since I don't want this on my Talk page, but you presumably may wish to have (a) a record, (b) a reply. Our views on titling differ. The use of the RM process is to enable community input. If the community decides that a variant spelling strategem appearing in 141 articles should not be a redirect to stratagem then that will be the community's decision. But it is not "disruptive" to question such a recent edit. Prior to the edit searching on the variant spelling led to articles mentioning "strategem". Now it does not. Hence the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, may I make it clear, my lack of support for your Hillary Clinton move review should not be taken personally, and should not I hope lead to WP:TAGTEAM actions of any kind. I actually agreed with the original RM and voted for it, to not support a move review against an unanimous quorum of 3 admins is a completely separate matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, one, so far, has been ~~speedily~~ closed ~~as nonsense~~: Talk:Desideratum#Requested move. --В²C ☎ 21:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It was closed as "not moved" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It was opposed unanimously. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Submitting an occasional move request that does not succeed (after attracting only 4 commenters) is not synonymous with being disruptive. If that one had stayed open a little longer, there would have been at least one more commenter, and the expressed views on the question would not have been unanimous. The one at Talk:Shhh#Requested move is currently running 6:1 in favor (with only B2C opposed). Talk:Results#Requested move is also currently similarly heavy in the support column. That's hardly obvious nonsense. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Atmosphere

I went back and forth on this, and ultimately decided that I was't going to block you for this. However, I would like you to retract it. It's fine that you disagree with some editors. But your statement adds literally nothing beneficial to the editing atmosphere of this project. As one of our core policies states in its intro, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." This is not the first time I have observed comments like this from you with regards to move discussions and I would ask that you reevaluate your approach to editing. NW (Talk) 04:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent verbosity without original substance.

RE: your recent edits. Your resistance to heeding advice, listening to others around you, and persistent verbosity without original substance is quite reminiscent of User:Abd. Much he had to say too was part correct or part sensible, but in the end he was net disruption and a net negative to the project. Are you irreversibly down the same path? If we do another RfC/U, who is going to defend you? What worthwhile contributions will be pointed to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@B2C, take a breather, pick your battles wisely, and trust that in due time, everything will work out. bd2412 T 13:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

wp:undab example case

You might be interested in this RM, as a parade example of superfluous parenthetical disambiguation. Cheers, ^walk victor falk^talk 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

HTML paragraph tags on wiki

When you use  tags in Talk pages, please don’t neglect to close them with a  somewhere. There seems to be a bug that causes that unclosed tag to interfere with wikimarkup to at least some extent for the rest of the page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? I've been doing that for years and never noticed an issue. Let's try.

Okay, so where is the problem? Here is new line without . Now I'll do a new paragraph.

Here I am in the new paragraph which I will end with .

And yet another new line. Any difference?

I see. When I start a new line it remains part of the paragraph if the previous  is not closed. --В²C ☎ 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Meta-ambiguity

Just so there’s no further confusion regarding my WT:AT topic: When I use words stemming from ambiguous there, I am not using it as wiki-jargon and referring to ambiguity between existing or potential article titles. I am using it in the general, dictionary definition sense of the word. Something that is ambiguous is open to more than one interpretation. Something that is unambiguous is not open to more than one interpretation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether you missed my reply over there or just haven’t gotten around to replying yet, but just in case: I don’t know what the “Google dictionary” is, but look up disambiguate in a real dictionary. It basically means “to make something stop being ambiguous,” and it entered the English language decades before Wikipedia was created. So no, the word was not a Wiki coinage and is not limited in scope to similarly titled WP articles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your rebuttals at Talk:Janet (album)

Maybe you should learn my mistakes at talk pages. I've done page move requests in the past, and I realize that I should always improve content before requesting page move. I made awful requests in Talk:Trollhunter, Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and Talk:Fergie. I made good intentions in Talk:Chandra Levy, but my rebuttals may have been either ineffective, offensive, or ignorant. --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive or ignorant about your rebuttals at Talk:Chandra Levy, but they were ineffective because they lacked support in policy, reason or logic. Not familiar with the other cases. I don't see what's wrong with my rebuttals. I still don't see a substantive opposing argument to Janet.. --В²C ☎ 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to type "Janet." or "Janet (album)"? Also, what about researching the title itself? There must be sources fully discussing the title "Janet." I mean, the period itself. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well... sometimes, anybody like me doesn't want to rebut your rebuttals, so civility is enforced. Obviously, if you try to make too many rebuttals, that makes you seemingly more interesting in the title itself than the article of the topic. Which is, "Janet." more than the successful (yet dated) album of 1993. --George Ho (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm most interested in stabilizing our titles. Often that interest is manifested in a way that makes it appear I have a peculiar interest in a particular title. Not sure what to do about that, but I'm not going to fake interest in some topic and edit the respective article to carry out this charade. --В²C ☎ 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Too late! Neither proposal is successful. "Janet (album)" is proven as stable to everyone's eyes. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you want to stabilize the title, here's "dot the i" (and talk:Dot the i). However, page move has been proposed twice and rejected last year. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB confusion

I am quite confused by a section of your WP:UNDAB. Please see that Talk page. The logic seems to be, “What you’re doing could disambiguate it if it needed to be disambiguated, and that’s why I can say that’s what it is.” That just seems so absurd to me that I’m sure it’s not right. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles‎

I thought you might be interested in this essay I have drafted at Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles‎. Please feel free to offer any suggestions you think will be helpful to improve it. bd2412 T 16:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB abandoned?

Hey, I can’t help wondering why you haven’t touched User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation since the MFD closed, which surprises me given how much you supported revising it. I’ve made some edits to it, and I’d like your input on those on its Talk page; or if you’d prefer, you can of course summarily revert my edits and WP:OWN the essay in your own userspace. I’m just unclear as to your intentions with it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Busy with real life. --В²C ☎ 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. If any real interest in revising develops, I'd appreciate a note; but since none is evident, I've self-reverted as explained on that Talk page. I must admit that I recognize I'm assuming the worst of you here, but… I guess I'm just done trying to assume good faith about this. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think the issues are. I haven't even looked at it. Reviewing, revising and tweaking it is not a high priority. --В²C ☎ 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dont revert due to consensus

I did some expansion work on that and would be happy about your feedback. Please note that I am harmful to society ;) Serten (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Born2cycle. You have new messages at BarrelProof's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah Jane Brown

I respect your changes, but politely disagree with them. I support the idea of a multiple RM: we should approach the problem from the viewpoint of not currently having a title and having to choose the best possible titles from a selection. I thought my template could have spurned an effort and impetus. I hope I can trust you to get this achieved. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with that edit. It's a template? We don't need a template. We know what RMs look like. It's just confusing and distracting at this point. Right now the focus should be on continuing to brainstorm for ideas on what the title choices should be. I expected this process to take at least a week, but in any case I see no point in moving on until we have at least 48 hours of lull. This title of this article has not had consensus support for years and years; surely we can afford a few days of discussion about the possibilities. If you want to help, how about completing the task of identifying all past participants? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought a template would have been helpful because you suggested it would be done differently to normal (multiple move with rankings included). It was my intention that users would see it, like it and agree to coming up with titles for it. I shall identify past participants now. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have finished the list for you, put the users in alphabetical order and made a combined list from all the RMs. I will not have time to help any further, sorry. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks so much! That will be a HUGE help. I've moved it to a sub-page so it does not take up so much of the talk page. Thanks again!!! --В²C ☎ 00:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are intent on driving another discussion, perhaps justifiable by being more comprehensive than any previous, would you please move it all to a subpage. If the intention is to re-examine every option, and invite every past participant, it will surely dominate the talk page, and surely for longer than a couple of weeks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm intent on finding a stable non-controversial title for this article. I'm not sure if you're talking about the proposal-preparation discussion, the eventual RM proposal discussion, or both. Currently we have a proposal-preparation discussion. I've moved the list of participants kindly assembled by IP 131 to a sub-page because there is nothing to discuss about that on the main talk page. This list will not be used until the RM proposal is formally created. At that time all former participants lists there will be notified.
 On the main talk page we have the compiling of the lists of title candidates, and the discussion about that. And, I just started a separate section whose purpose is to draft the RM proposal itself. I don't expect much discussion there, if any. There shouldn't be too much controversy there - I'm sure we all just want a clear and objective statement.
 Once these two discussions have quieted down, we can make the formal RM proposal, and issue the notifications. I would expect this to be on the article's talk page, as is the convention. --В²C ☎ 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 - You are continuing to the instability. That said, the work going into this looks good. The advantage of putting the whole thing on a subpage, preparation, discussion, RM-proper, is that it is less disruptive to the talk page, and many editors may feel free to contribute if they don't feel their addition is adding to the disruption. There is a strong argument that the whole thing should be speedily closed, as it is less than a week since the last close. This would be less an issue if on a subpage. I strongly feel that this process, if it goes ahead, will use a lot of space and at least several weeks. It probably should be considered an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 - Once again, you are holding me to a standard to which nobody else expects anyone else to meet. It's not like that's a really active article and progress is being held up by this discussion. What problem are you even addressing, much less trying to solve? --В²C ☎ 01:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 - <B2C snipped text>
 Multi-reverting a post and making conversation in the edit summary is an interesting idea, but doesn't really work for me.
 You have some issue with "its not an active article"? OK. No you did not say that. Forget it. But note that I am trying to reasonably answer a reasonable question.
 The problem is that with so much activity on the talk page devoted to an issue (the title) of interest to so few, is that if someone, a reader for example, is tempted to write something on the talk page, they may be overwhelmed by the amount of tangential activity there. That's the problem. The solution is to put this RfC-RM on a subpage. Putting it on a subpage is slightly unusual but not unprecedented, and justified by the very large number to editors intended to be invited, and by the very long discussion time anticipated. Leave it on the main talk page, it should be procedurally shut down, and many editors will refrain from contributing due to alleged failure to drop stick concerns. Even if the discussion were to appear to find a consensus, it would be muddied by these concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 Have you looked at the archives? The only topic of discussion for years has been the title. When there are lulls in title discussions, there is no other discussion. As far as I can tell you never complained about any of those discussions, but now that B2C has started one, oh, that should be closed. That should be moved to a sub-page, etc.
 The irony is that the goal here is to finally end all this discussion about the title. Of course, piling irony on top of irony, that requires some more title discussion, but hopefully that's just very short term, and then, finally, it will be resolved. Just like long-controversial titles at Yogurt, Sega Genesis and many other articles were finally resolved when special focus like this was given to resolving it. What cracks me up is there are always people like you trying to derail the efforts to develop consensus through this type of discussion. Anyway, after 5 pages of archived talk pages containing almost only discussions about the title, it makes no sense to put this one, hopefully last, discussion on a sub-page. Besides, I disagree with you that it will last any longer than normal. Heck, requests sitting in the backlog now are over a month old anyway. So a month is normal. Are you proposing all RMs be moved to a subpage because they're likely to be open a month too? No, you're not. And plenty of much more important articles get far more attention given to their titles than this one ever will (e.g., Talk:Hong Kong), but all those discussions are not moved to a sub-page. You're just making stuff up. Maybe you don't realize it (bias is often blinding), but you are being ridiculously unreasonable. --В²C ☎ 07:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

- - - - You got me. I had not look at the archives closely enough to see that there is very little talk content not focused on the title. Forget the subpage idea, virtually the entire archives are rename discussions.

In general, yes, there should be lulls between discussions. This is probably not the best time to try to impose that poorly followed rule.

I do see a similarity between SJB and yogurt. Both involved early moves that later participants considered "wrong", and seeing a past wrong stand is upsetting. For SJB, RM3 produced a result that for many was offensive. (I note that the consensus rode on a late rush behind a new suggestion, lasting just 15 hours until closed, this haste looks like a root problem). RM6 then produced a move that was more motivated by getting away from the broadly criticised existing title than by a consensus for the result. The MR failed basically because the fault was with the participants and the discussion and not with the closer. I stand by my comment in the MR.

Apart from the small issue with Borda counting, I think you and the IP are doing the right thing. I think this needs to be done with a lot more care than RM3, an apparent consensus should not again be rushed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as the Borda counting goes, keep in mind that's just one way to possibly evaluate the results. It's not key to the process. Each participant listing preferences in order, along with reasoning, is most important. But the points can be useful. Just like in a regular RM counting the !votes is one measure, in this type of multi-choice-list-in-order-of-preference RM scoring per Borda counting is one measure. If it gives a clear result, great. If not, then it's no consensus. What's interesting here though is what happens if neither of the top two is the current title, and the current title is relatively disfavored. So we would have no consensus between the top two choices, and yet clear consensus against the current title. That's why we need the reasoning and a closing admin to sort it all out. It's also why insincere preference ordering can end up backfiring. --В²C ☎ 16:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural and over-egging

"You're dodging again. I ask for your opinion about how a specific phrase in WP:NATURAL should apply in this case, and you answer a much more general question"

WP:NATURAL is imperfectly written if it is read as saying Sarah Jane Brown is not natural. Policy needs to be read with more common sense than you allow.

But you consistently miss the more important more general point. This SJBRM, you have over-egged your part of the preparation. WP:NATURAL is a feature of the over-egging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask you if WP:NATURAL is perfectly written. Why won't you answer the question being asked? It won't kill you, really. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you see my point, that in a case like this, where you are quite arguably right (SJB is not good), you would have been more persuasive by saying less?

Can you restate the question carefully and I'll give it a go. It is not black and white to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm often my own worst enemy because of saying too much.

QUESTION TO YOU: What do you think is a reasonable way to interpret the WP:NATURAL instruction, "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources", for this case, other than "'Sarah Jane Brown' does not qualify as "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, because this subject is never called 'Sarah Jane Brown' in English reliable sources"? --В²C ☎ 00:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Putting aside this particular case, do you think in general this is a good and reasonable instruction? Why or why not? If not, how would you change it, and do you think such a change is likely to get consensus support? --В²C ☎ 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you think is a reasonable way to interpret the WP:NATURAL instruction

My interpretation of this WP:NATURAL instruction is that it is silent on this particular question.

The line strongly instructs with an imperative "choose", but this does not imply "only choose" or "do not choose" where the following clauses are not met.

I read it quite comfortably as saying, "if 'Sarah Jane Brown' is used in reliable sources, it should be used for disambiguation if disambiguation is needed, ahead of parethetical or comma disambiguation. Reliable sources do not use "Sarah Jane Brown", and so this line does not instruct the use of "Sarah Jane Brown". But the text does not include the word "only", or any prohibition of the converse, so it does not say or imply, for example, "Do not choose an alternative name that the subject unless it is used in at least one English reliable sources"

This silence leaves the editor just with the standard advice, to follow WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, with "Sarah Jane Brown" not trumping parenthetical disambiguation as WP:NATURAL does not apply to it. --04:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: Is it a good and reasonable instruction

Always a good question. Considering... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Over-egging

"I'm often my own worst enemy because of saying too much"

Like someone in a meeting who consistently and relentless speaks, hijacking the meeting. A good chair shuts down that person. Wikipedia discussion pages do not use chairs. You need some restraint in frequent and repetitive posting. Repetitive includes saying the same thing to different people on the same page.

I suggest, that had you waited 2 months until 12 December, and not engaged in challenges to your statements, the RM would have proceeded with more harmony than discord. Too many arguments, like too many eggs in the pudding, makes the thing distasteful. That the many arguments are right, like the fact that you have a glut of eggs, is no excuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Brown

Hi B2C. I just saw the moratorium and closed RM discussion (via Boing's talk page). I don't think the moratorium was a good idea (a discussion stifler for sure) but it is now a fait accompli so c'est la vie and all that. Since the proposal itself looks complicated, you might want to consider asking for a triumvirate of admin closers if you decide to reopen the RM after the six month moratorium. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Raining Men (song)#Suggested move

I invite you to join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola rename

I'm curious why you removed your own comment in support of renaming. (I also support renaming, and hope you'll rejoin the discussion.)--Froglich (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I commented before I realized the separate article on the virus itself. I need to think about this with that in mind. --В²C ☎ 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review this.

Do you have some time to review this draft request at User:WPGA2345/sandbox/draft, and let me know what you think, or any changes to make? I know you are interested in this area. I would like to do this by the end of the year. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A reminder

I would just like to gently point out that you, personally, do not necessarily represent the majority of Wikipedia users, whether editors or readers. I don’t imagine anyone could reasonably make that claim, in fact. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, duh. Please don't conflate talking about what the consensus of the community is on a given issue with representing one's opinion as if it represents the majority of the community. They're not the same. For example, I can say the community wishes to include the state name in the titles of articles US cities that are not on the AP list, even though I believe that is not following our policies and guidelines as best as we would if we only included the state when it's necessary for disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really anything like that; I was actually spurred by seeing you talk rather authoritatively and unilaterally about what all readers want/expect/need. Just struck me as inappropriate for any given editor to assume that kind of authority. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Without a link I can only guess what you're talking about. I try to be very careful about distinguishing my opinion from my belief about what the consensus opinion, or what the widely held opinion, or, even, what opinion is most consistent with known consensus on relevant related matters (which is sometimes the best we can do). This is all very important because we are supposed to make decisions based on what consensus is. Well, then, we must have opinions about what consensus is, then, don't we? Again, without knowing exactly what you're talking about I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing I was probably doing just that - expressing my opinion about what I believe relevant consensus to be on the issue in question. --В²C ☎ 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)