User talk:Mike Cline/Arguments to avoid in Requested Move discussions

User:Mike Cline/Arguments to avoid in Requested Move discussions

Comments and suggestions on the essay

Primary topic doesn't apply to X

Not sure if it would be its own section or part of the one of the existing ones, but something on claims about primary topic not applying to a certain subject (like pop culture as seen here and here) should be added. Calidum T|C 19:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am pondering how to best capture this sentiment. I'm pretty sure it will fall under the "I don't agree with he guideline section." --Mike Cline (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change Ups

Mike, this is excellent! I especially like the "Change Ups" section. That's an excellent term to use. It's very relevant, and it's a constant problem which complicates RfCs and RMs. That section could be enlarged.

Inexperienced closers often just count !votes and close, without discounting/ignoring such improper !votes. If a !vote is not exactly "on-topic", it should not be counted. Such poor closures just kick the problem down the road, resulting in more RfCs/RMs, because the original problem was not resolved. Dispute resolution should not become a disruptive process. It should aim to resolve disruption.

While I understand the reasoning behind having "uninvolved" people closing such things, it has the huge disadvantage that they don't understand all the real issues or complicated history. They don't know which options have already been considered and rejected, and why it happened. Thus their closes can be very shortsighted and create more problems, or ignore previous consensus which has "brought us to where we are now." So instead of getting closer to a solution, the bad close just puts it off, changes its direction, sends it off on a long detour, and/or complicates matters. This seriously disrupts the process, irritates editors, causes burn out, etc.. Ideally, each discussion/RfC/RM should narrow the possibilities left, thus pushing editors closer to a final solution. Dispute resolution should not create more disputes!

We have had this problem at the Kim Davis (county clerk) article. I don't recall a more complicated article situation, and I've been here since about 2003. Several improper closes have been made, with one closer even proposing a third "solution" (which had already occurred) in their close! Another situation I'm looking at right now is an attempt to hijack my RfC through use of a "change up" proposal. It's very disruptive. Here it is, and I'd appreciate some astute comments: Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#New Proposal. Hijacking of RfCs, RMs, essays, and articles is really wrong.

This essay is titled to deal with RMs, but the principles also apply to RfCs. Is there such an essay for RfCs, or would retitling this essay serve the purpose if you just included mention of RfCs?

BTW, would you mind if I made extremely minor fixes of the type covered by REFACTOR and MINOR? Please ping me. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to any changes you might think are needed. I would disagree that this essay is 100% applicable to RFCs. RMs have a fairly straight forward context: Move article X to Y. Whereas, the context of any given RFC can be just about anything. I would agree that some of the arguments I highlight to avoid might be relevant to RFCs in general, but clearly not all of them. My purpose here was to provide advice to make RMs more efficient. But, you are free to plagiarize any of the arguments that might be applicable to an essay: Arguments to avoid in RFC discussions. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'll take a look at that one. Keep up the good work. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add one

This was a good read, I don't have anything particular to critique about the existing sections. One thing I would add, probably in its own section, is quoting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (generally to try and dismiss a consistency argument) is not a smart thing to do at RM and it is a mistake often made by reasonably experienced editors. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid at AfD, but at RM it is actually a perfectly good argument because consistency is one our key naming criteria and nearly all of our naming conventions were created in an attempt to increase consistency. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, I added a bit about Other Stuff --Mike Cline (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I was going to suggest that there is an RM alternative of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, related to the I disagree with the guideline argument (perhaps it could be a subsection). I've seen several RMs where an attempt is being made to move an article to a guideline-compliant title (or away from one), and an editor will oppose/support based on the fact that there are other examples of articles not following the guideline (often because they have been created or moved by someone not aware of the guideline, or because there are specific reasons for those particular article titles being inappropriate if the guideline were used). Number 5 7 16:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Born2Cycle

I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with the opening paragraph. While there are certainly some articles for which there is no perfect title, the vast, vast majority of our articles do have perfect titles, and that's the titles that they have. If you click repeatedly on SPECIAL:RANDOM you will find one perfect title after another. That's especially true if you exclude titles requiring disambiguation. When disambiguation is not required, most topics have an obvious common name, and that name is the perfect title for the article about that topic. Even the ones that require disambiguation often have perfect titles because the disambiguator is often just as obvious as the most common name. Almost all people, books, films, companies and most places have obvious perfect titles even if they require disambiguation. The articles that don't have perfect titles are the exceptions. The premise that there is no perfect title suggests that for most articles any one of several titles are just as good. Again, while that is sometimes the case, it is the exception. This whole approach sets off the essay on the wrong foot, in my opinion. I have a similar objection to the first sentence of the 4th paragraph in the intro, but the rest of it is good.

As to the list of arguments themselves, I like it. I do object to "I disagree with the guideline argument" because IAR is commonly and rightfully applicable. Change normally occurs bottom-up on WP, since the guidelines and policies tend to reflect behavior more than they dictate behavior. There are several reasons for this, but probably the most important is that we rarely have a true quorum deciding anything. Even on policy talk pages most decisions involve a handful or two of the thousands of editors working on Wikipedia. No one discussion can really establish true broad consensus. So it makes sense to change things one article, or a few articles, at a time. Then, if a trend is established, one can propose a change to the corresponding policy, guideline, MOS or whatever to reflect the new trend which establishes true broad consensus. Another important related reason for allowing change at the article level contrary to guidelines (for good reason per WP:IAR) is that requiring policy/guideline/MOS change prior to change at the article level creates a Catch-22 situation: you can't change at the article level because doing so is contrary to the guidelines; but you can't change the guidelines because the guidelines accurately reflect what is going on at the article level. --В²C ☎ 22:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2Cycle: Thanks for the comments. I’ve taken the liberty to move your comments on to the draft essay’s talk page to keep the discussion centralized.

You make three points. Two of them I understand, but don’t agree with as well as I find them contradictory in a way. The third point, I have a similar objective to the first sentence in paragraph 4 of the intro which says Our title policy and related guidelines exist for one purpose—crafting the most appropriate titles for our encyclopedia’s articles is puzzling. If our title policy and related guidelines are not there to guide editors in making title decisions, then what purpose do they serve?

I think your point about perfect titles is more a semantic one and I would argue that what you are really saying is that most WP article titles are settled or agreed upon (stable by the tomes on your userpage) by the community. They are perfect in no way for several reasons. 1) We have no standard of perfection for article titles. There’s just too much leeway and contradiction in policy, guidelines and MOS to say one title is perfect and another is not. For most titles there are rational, logical alternatives that would be just as appropriate for the encyclopedia. New York City could just as rationally and logically be titled New York, New York or New York, NY and it wouldn’t change the content of the article one iota and readers wouldn’t be confused or astonished if they found the article at any one of those names. 2) There is so much contradiction and tension between the collective body of title policy, guidelines, MOS and process that inconsistency in the application of that collective body of guidance is widespread within the encyclopedia. If our titles were perfect, such inconsistency wouldn’t exist.

There is a great sketch scene in the 1958 movie No Time for Sergeants that illustrates what can happen when guidance, although well intended sends conflicting messages and gets wildly misinterpreted. As a bus load of recruits meets their sergeant for the first time, they are given a form to fill out with the instructions—Last name first, first name last, first name middle name last. And of course Will Stockdale (played by Andy Griffith) complied. When the sergeant read the form it read something like this: Stockdale, Will, Will, Stockdale, Will, Beauregard, Stockdale. The guidance had been followed to the letter.

On the point about avoiding the "I disagree with the guideline argument", I think that actually contradicts your point about perfection. If our collective body of titles were perfect, wouldn’t that be attributable to adhering to policy and guidelines, not ignoring it. The real issue I have with this point is that from a closer’s point of view, I have no issue with someone disagreeing with a title policy or guidelines. However when RM closers are implored to judge discussion consensus and consider policy and guidelines when making RM decisions, it is difficult to give much credence to a position that is based solely on the idea that the contributor doesn’t agree with the guidelines. To do so would essentially be a supervote!. Although I couldn’t find it, I do recall you objecting to advertising RMs on relevant projects in a much earlier discussion because it would result in more RM participation by editors unfamiliar with title policy and guidelines.

Again appreciate the comments. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consistency

...is marked historical. Perhaps you meant a different page instead? "The two edged sword—Other stuff" needs a little more work; I'm thinking of suggestions for how best to restate it's conclusions.--Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A step in the right direction

In general, I would say that the current draft goes a good way to addressing common issues at RM discussions. There are still a few rough spots where it's not as clear as it could be. Hopefully it will get more input and revisions from other RM regulars and closers, but I think we've got a solid foundation for a useful essay.--Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great first steps and some thoughts

Mike, great ideas presented! Here are some of my thoughts. I have sectioned them out for easier dialogue so that if anyone wanted to discuss one specific point we didn't have to deal with a WALLOFTEXT, so as a result each point is individually signed: Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I agree there is often no PERFECT title. There are many GOOD names in use, but rarely a perfect title. Although I would say that it is possible for an article to have MORE than one title via redirects -- while not exactly the same, it does help a lot with "Familiarity Argument" and "Clairvoyancy Argument" Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective application of policy, guidelines and MOS

What might be needed is some framework for an order of precedent when apply contradicting policies. For example in order of increasing precedent... Other Stuff, Precision, Consistency, Common Name, Conciseness, Primary Topic, Topic-specific convention. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change Ups

This might also be something that we want to clear up in the RM process in general, regarding how alternative names should be proposed and the impact on the discussion and closing. This would probably require a separate RFC on the RM Talk page. For example, should alternate names be introduced if significant discussion has already began? Perhaps if the consensus is moving in another direction from the proposal, it should close not moved, and then a new discussion immediately started on alternative names for a week before a new RM based on the new name consensus... Or perhaps we feel that mid-discussion renames are okay, but that pinging prior contributors would be appropriate. etc. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loud shouting

I just noticed that WP:RM has no formal guide on how to participate/!vote in an RM discussion. This should include the different options, etc. But also some of the essential policies, guides and precedents established for the naming process. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also stand somewhere divided on the "strong" statement, it is probably utalized a bit differently for each person, for me I find some value, and to a degree, I probably do mean "my !vote should count more" but do feel sometimes (when used sparingly) it is an appropriate sentiment. 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Attacking other contributors

I would add a statement regarding it been appropriate in the case of verified sock behavior, including striking votes, etc.Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility, such as: If we change Plutonium Province they we'd need to change Applesauce (a completely unrelated topic) with no connection via policy, etc... just a passive-aggressive saying that your proposal is crazy.Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgone Conclusion

Agreed with the statement, although I think there needs to be a place where someone involved can essentially say this RM discussion has taken a turn for the worse, and it is just become a platform for 2 or more very involved editors to rehash the same statements, etc. An editor involved in the RM, but not involved in the discussion war itself, should be able to say, hey, we need an admin to close this because we're getting nowhere. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New items

If we change Plutonium Province they we'd need to change A B and 100 other articles -- If there is enough consensus that the applicable policy is to change the article, then perhaps the other titles should be changed as well. Doing the right thing on one article shouldn't be prevented because more work will be needed. However, this argument should be a red flag that those other articles should also be checked for prior RM discussions. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other polices which probably just need to be cleaned up in their respective forums

WP:BIO1E clarification for RMs such as Kim Davis (county clerk). Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An essay is needed for more appropraite use of Google for establishing common name and primary topic.Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on WP:RM about the timing of a recent RM -- such that there are only certain cases where an RM is permitted within 6 months of a prior closure. And that in other cases either MR or requesting a reopen of a RM is more appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take the MOS out of this essay

The MOS is a a guideline for content not for article titles for which there is the AT policy and the policy's guidelines called naming conventions.

The relationship between the MOS and AT is semi-detached. A major problem is lots of stuff gets added all over the MOS with little scrutiny that could affect article titles. AT is a policy page like the three content policy pages has the huge advantage over the MOS because many editors see and discuss any proposed changes in a central place.

For this reason I think all mention of the MOS should be removed from "Arguments to avoid in Requested Move discussions":

"Selective application of policy, guidelines and MOS" should read "Selective application of policies and guidelines"
"(naming conventions, MOS, disambiguation, NPOV etc.)" ought to be "(naming conventions, disambiguation, NPOV etc.)
"I think the MOS is wrong when it comes to lower casing titles" remove it or change it to "I think AT policy is wrong when it comes to lower casing titles" as the justification is "If a policy or guideline requires change,". The MOS does not apply to article titles, what the MOS says is irrelevant to whether it needs changing to fit in with such an argument as it does not apply to article titles. In this example it is the WP:TITLEFORMAT section in AT that specifies "Use lowercase, except for proper names", not the MOS that is relevant.

-- PBS (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & seconded. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]