Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:48, 17 August 2011

Archives
January 2003 – December 2005 January – March 2006 April – May 2006 June 2006 July - September 2006 October - November 2006 December 2006 - January 2007 February 2007 - March 2007 April 2007 - June 2007 July 2007 - October 2007 November 2007 - February 2008 February 2008 - April 2008 May 2008 - March 2009 April 2009 - June 2009 July 2009 - September 2009 October 2009 - August 2010 September 2010 -

The Department of Musicology at the Palacky University Olomouc

Hello,

some time ago, you moved Palacký University, Olomouc to Palacký University of Olomouc. I would like to ask you to do the same with The Department of Musicology at the Palacky University Olomouc. I propose to rename it into Department of Musicology (Palacký University, Faculty of Philosophy), putting it into the same line with Centre for Clinical Legal Education (Palacký University, Faculty of Law). I am not sure whether the latter is the best way to name an article, if you have any better idea, please change both the Musicology department and the Clinical Centre.

I merely write on Wiki, the technical things like renaming articles are beyond my capabilities. I would be thankful, if you could help me with that.

Best Regards Cimmerian praetor Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(same text at User talk:Propaniac)

Thank you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Owsley_Stanley#Steely_Dan

I see you've met Dlabtot. I've had to remove several articles from my watchlist because of him. You got off easy. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project

I see from the discussion there that you have an interest in the Incubation project. You may be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

67.233.18.28

You're probably just as frustrated as I am with the IP user 67.233.18.28. The reason I haven't responded to your points is not because I am unwilling to discuss, but because I don't want to be dragged out into a long WP:IDHT argument with him. Obviously I'm involved, and I guess you are as well, but is there anything at all we could do about his conduct? NW (Talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not. I just entered the discussion, and I get the impression you've already gone twelve rounds with him. It looks like an uninvolved admin has arrived on the scene though; let's see how that plays out. -GTBacchus 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomáš Kubalík move closure

I don't necessarily disagree with your closure, but it might be helpful to address the proposal, which noted that Tomas Kubalik was just moved to Tomáš Kubalík. So, if there's no consensus, then maybe it should stay at Tomas Kubalik. As the ip !voter, 65.94.47.63, put it, "As this looks like it would never pass a WP:RM, so it should be reverted." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this line of reasoning, but it might be worth addressing it in your closure. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made an extra paragraph in my closing rationale, which I hope addresses the concerns that you're bringing up. -GTBacchus 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Requested move

Really? One of the opposes is, well, invalid because it isn't true, and the other is from a user who outright admitted that the naming guidelines agreed with the move but who opposed it anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, really. The discussion was a week deep into the backlog, and there was very little input from the community. If a few more people care to weigh in, then the page can be moved without having to go through the whole RM process, and I'd be totally willing to help with that. When I'm closing these things, I've got to make a call one way or the other, and it's pretty much guaranteed that someone will disagree with my decision each time.

It doesn't seem to be an urgent matter, so if it gets moved in a week rather than today, no big deal. If it doesn't get moved at all, that's also no big deal. Why not drop by a relevant WikiProject, see what people say there, and then let me know? -GTBacchus 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh. WikiProject Free Software has about three significantly active members and two of them contributed to the discussion. It's purely an issue of following the naming guidelines: you don't have to know anything about the program to follow the argument. How about a relist? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If thumperward's comment about the "user who outright admitted that the naming guidelines agreed with the move but opposed it anyway" is a reference to me, as it appears to be, that's a dishonest misrepresentation. My actual remark was that the name change "would allow us to obey the guidelines according to your interpretation" which is not exactly the same as saying that's MY interpretation. Frankly, I have pretty much had it with thumperward. As I also remarked, "Notably absent is any claim this would improve the article." For the life of me, I cannot figure out why thumperward is behaving like this, starting with his unnecessarily difficult behavior at User_talk:Thumperward#Moving Bash. I think he should give it up and move on. He's welcome to think he's right and that all the rest of us are idiots; who cares. But he's not welcome to think he should get his way even in the absence of support from a consensus. And he's definitely not welcome to misrepresent my position. Msnicki (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I was misrepresenting your position. If I have done then I apologise. As for why I'm "being like this", it's because I occasionally get annoyed that I can do things like huge reorganisation of floppy disk without any hassle, and yet I find myself spending days and weeks jumping through red tape for the most trivial page moves regardless of what the naming convetions say. I know that Parkinson's Law of Triviality tells me to expect this, but it still gets my hackles up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason you're getting pushback is because the singular reason you're offering is that it's your interpretation of the rules and because you seem insensitive to what this does to the article. It's possible that your reorganization of floppy disk is wonderful and that even a curmudgeon like me would love it. But I don't like this proposed change and I've told you why. I also dislike having my legitimate disagreement dismissed as "red tape". And again, your only response is that YOU think this is what the rules require (misrepresenting your own opinion also, in this case, not as your opinion but as TRUTH). Well, look at those rules: One of the examples disambiguates with "set theory"; if your interpretation was ironclad, why didn't the example disambiguate with "mathematics"? There IS no answer. It is a judgment call and your judgment in this case is poor. Msnicki (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, guys: I don't care who said she said he said what. I don't care what you think of each other's judgment. I'm not believing or disbelieving anything in particular, and whatever issues you may have with each other, I think you should pursue somewhere other than my talk page. I've posted a couple of notes around to get more input on this naming dispute, and no decision will be made based on either of you telling me anything about the other. Let's let it drop, okay? Please. -GTBacchus 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Cheers. Sorry for the talk page noise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Move of Miguel Angel Pantò

Hi GTBacchus, I saw that you had doubts about moving "Miguel Angel Pantò". You wrote that you are not sure about the reason of the move; I see from your user page that you understand Spanish, so you probably know that in Spanish all accents are acute: since Pantó was born in Argentina, he had an Argentinian name, with acute accents. The grave accent is a misleading Italian way of writing Spanish, since Italian language doesn't have as many acute accents as Spanish does. As you can see here, I personally moved the page on it.wiki about two years ago. This move is a mere linguistic issue. Excuse my mistakes while formatting the request, it's completely different on it.wiki. :-) I see that you are on a Wikipause: you can find me here on en.wiki, but if you need to talk with me with hurry, or for any other reason, feel free to contact me on it.wiki. --Triple 8 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that makes perfect sense about the accents. When I processed that page, I didn't even really look at what the issue was with the name, because I was just trying to adjust the formatting so that the bot tending the page at Requested moves would know where to list it. Of course, there are no grave accents in Spanish, and I'm sure there won't be any problems moving the page when its requisite seven days have elapsed. Thanks for the note. -GTBacchus 23:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

About your remarks at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire in the now-closed RFC / RM

You don't like the word "idiocy". So many people don't like the word. Many people don't like many things. I don't like someone who has nothing better to do than mock and insult those in disagreement. That is what Fyunck(click) was doing when i was bothering with that discussion. Somehow my responses to him buried his comments which instigated the responses. When you start an RFC on a topic which already has a failed RFC on the current revision of the talk page i wouldn't call that an intelligent move. Those who dismiss all instances which do not support their desire and claim they have thus found a dominant common name are where the idiocy comes in. Claiming the USA calls it Ivory Coast while dismissing the CIA use of Côte d'Ivoire is not a particularly wise move to make. Basing it on what the majority of the US media goes by is equally dismissive of the rest of the world including the country at the centre of the issue. Repeated requests to move the article when throughout the English-speaking world it is about equally split is at best frustrating. If one looks to more than just the English-speaking world i have a feeling the dominance would go to Côte d'Ivoire but policy is to dismiss all non-English sources in matters such as this.
The "anti-English only" comes from fighting over whether it is appropriate to link to an article about a company whose business is conducted in French when the article where the link would be is found on English Misplaced Pages. The article being linked to is also on English Misplaced Pages but apparently linking to it is a no-no. Calling something inherently non-notable and inappropriate to link to because it isn't English but is worthy of its own article is where my "anti-English-only" comes from. Also i thought declaring a personal bias would be a good thing rather than hiding it. That being said i am not at all fluent in anything but English.
As to telling that person, "you can go back under your bridge now", it was in direct response to their calling me a troll despite my having previous legitimate involvement in the matter being discussed.

I'm glad you found a couple uses of the name cote divoire but Ivory Coast is so overwhelmingly used in everyday English and the press that if we start to list these silly types of items as you did we'd run out of bandwidth here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2011, Monday (13 days ago) (UTC−6)

Got this from moi:

I'm not glad that you have nothing better to say than dismissive insults and mockery at those whom you disagree with. I personally find not one item in the list to be silly. I happen to agree with the position of the one who made the list but to stoop to calling the World Trade Organisation, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the CIA, Chinese news, and the United Nations silly types of items which presumably are worthy of instant dismissal while claiming an obvious overwhelming use in presumably American everyday English for Ivory Coast does nothing beneficial for anyone. The usage in international media is generally about evenly divided. Ignoring that which you don't like is an example of why i voted as i did, which you subsequently commented on. Misplaced Pages is neither American nor yours personally. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 04:04, 20 June 2011, Monday (13 days ago) (UTC−6)

and this a few minutes after (though it was placed before on the talk page):

So besides calling people who disagree with you "silly" and "trolls", do you have anything to contribute to your own move request? It seems that you want to change the country's name because you can't even write it properly. Laurent (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2011, Monday (13 days ago) (UTC−6)

Laurent's comment is also directed at Fyunck(click) somewhat in my defence and in defence of a few other people who were denigrated by Fyunck(click). You can threaten to block me. You can block me. It won't make me think better of Fyunck(click). There was a very long comment on the content; posted in 3 or 4 parts to minimise potential edit conflicts. If you and Fyunck(click) openly declare your refusal to read it and then blame it on my use of the word idiocy then that is your choice. I don't agree with it as i tend to read it all but you are free to decide such for yourself. Oddly enough you presently find yourself at odds with Fyunck(click) over the closure of the RFC. "I'm tired of seeing this article come through WP:RM. Doesn't it get old for everyone else, too? There are a million articles that need improvement, and people would rather spin our tires in this same old mud pit? Why?" is a more jovial visual but holds about the same meaning as "idiocy" in my understanding. delirious & lost ☯ 03:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what to say in response. The more you use inflammatory language, the worse your chances are for dispute resolution. The more you use inflammatory language, the less chance that people arriving upon the situation will take you seriously. The same applies to me. When I sound more intemperate, I'm less effective as an editor.

I never declared a refusal to read anything. I read your entire comment, and I commented on the part that stuck out the most to me. That kind of thing sticks out to people.

If someone calls you a troll, the best response, and the one that will make you look the best, is to rise above it, not to hit back. This is useful knowledge for you; think about it. -GTBacchus 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero episodes

Just wanted to thank you for finally performing the move. Much appreciated! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar!

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For your work on Sphingid moths. AshLin (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :D

I don't really know anything about Sphingid moths, but I was able to figure out the sub-families and tribes well enough to sort a lot of stubs. The work was fun, and it's a good reminder to pay more notice to my Lepidopteran neighbors. There might be Sphingids on my front porch even as I type! Maybe I'll do some more in-depth reading. :)

Thanks again. -GTBacchus 04:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GTB for your contribution to Fossil fuels lobby.

Thank you GTB for your contribution to Fossil fuels lobby (Energy lobby).  :-) 99.181.136.35 (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad move of Joseph Smith

You appear to have screwed up a recent move so that Joseph Smith is now an infinite loop. It is beyond me to resolve this, can you do so? PatGallacher (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Hi, I'm not sure what happened, but the recent move of Joseph Smith, Jr. to Joseph Smith has resulted in a self-redirect and the entire edit history being deleted. I tried restoring the article and edit history but go a wikimedia error. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked another Admin to see if they can do anything with it. Padillah (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm sorry. I was moving the page, and I got a "session data lost" screen, and I hit "refresh", and I think I ended up making the same move twice, with the second overwriting the first one. It might need a steward to fix it, because the revision history has over 10,000 versions in it. :/ -GTBacchus 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does not work

I can not access the Joseph Smith article, it does not work.79.209.37.150 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For relentlessly encouraging other editors to pursue the betterment of the project, for humbly stepping in to resolve conflict in high-stress areas, and for simply using the admin tools for niceness instead of evil, I award you this barnstar. Neelix (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's true, I try not to be evil (and sometimes succeed). Thanks for noticing. ;) -GTBacchus 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Grumble

Do try harder. You should not have closed Talk:Jakub Petružálek#requested move, especially with an argument that it's the Wave of the Future. Admins should not use a crystal ball, any more than article writers, and you are involved in the issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no crystal-ball gazing there. I said the present is much more accepting of diacritics than the past has been. Nothing at all about the future. I certainly don't see how I'm involved in the issue. Am I pro- or anti-diacritic? I've closed plenty of moves in both directions, you know. I've certainly tried to read consensus on the issue, over the years, but I don't care one way or the other. I just do my best to read consensus accurately; I've observed it grow steadily more supportive of diacritics over 5 years.

Since you've questioned this decision, I've posted to WP:AN#Request review of my actions for review of my actions. I will always defer to the consensus will of the community.

In general, Pmanderson, if you have an issue with any action of mine, you're welcome to bring it up at the time. You needn't wait until someone gives me a barnstar to let me know I've screwed up. I'm actually very receptive to constructive criticism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, anyway. -GTBacchus 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't wait, I just found this section at the bottom. Whatever ANI does, feel free to remove the thread. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I never remove things on my talk page. It's a record of who said what, and where, until I archive it. I still don't understand your allegation that I'm somehow "involved". If you want to explain that, I'll eagerly listen. I'm willing to try harder, but the more specific you are, the more responsive I can be. -GTBacchus 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen you in these discussions (although your example is more visible than you are); I may have made more of it than there is. I have made a proposal at AN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My "example is more visible" than I am... I am very curious what this means. Specific examples would be awesome. -GTBacchus 04:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, the use of the closure linked to in this section of a current RfC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you for that link. -GTBacchus 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Old fooian and related category nominations

In looking at some of the latest comments for a series of CfD nominations on July 19, there is some rather odd timing that hints of WP:CANVASS. While the notices posted by User:Ephebi about these discussions are neutral, they appear to only be posted on user talk pages of those opposed to the change based on the opinions added. This topic of the Old Fooian form for school attendees has been discussed over the years with, as I recall, results being for both sides. I don't know how much you have been following CfD or if you have any interest, but I believe you have been doing some difficult RM closes, so that may qualify you as an uninvolved administrator here.

My current leaning is to close the lot as a tainted discussion. I'm also concerned since some of the responses are just being added to discussions solely on the topic and not really considering the merits of individual discussions. That further suggests a negative impact to the discussion in violation of WP:CANVASS. Please respond on my talk page since you are not the first admin I've asked for advice. The best outcome would be a clear untainted close of keep or rename. But if process has issues, then that is not going to happen. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimo in China

You renamed/moved Jimo and closed the discussion about it, imho a bit prematurely. I agree the rename/move is correct, but we should have waited until some more facts about Jimo are added to the article. Right now, administrative importance (top article name) and contents are out of balance. To reach a new balance quickly, I suggest to put Jimo on the list of articles needing improvement. Shenhemu (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. You are articulating a perspective that I have never before heard or considered in article titling questions, and I find it intriguing. We agree that speedy article improvement should be a goal for Jimo. I'll look into that now, and I'll be thinking about the "balance" you refer to. That's very interesting. -GTBacchus 01:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:Thanks for catching that

Thank you for the warm message GTBacchus! I appreciate your contributions to the article as well :-) Cheers mate. - Fedayee (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

St David's and the Cathedral Close

You deleted the redirect at St David's and the Cathedral Close. That is the official name of the city of St Davids. Even though it has no internal links it should be there for external links. Agathoclea (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is still there. I only deleted its talk page. -GTBacchus 07:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed when I posted that here. Misread the logs - sorry. Should stick a WP Wales banner on that one anyway. Agathoclea (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you like. I don't know how standard it is to put project banners on redirects, but I have no objection to it. -GTBacchus 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a very low priority task as it is not normally seen, but useful when a RfD gets filed the project gets notified. Agathoclea (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Gandhi

Thanks for taking the time to read through and mull over the many arguments in the Gandhi move. I enjoyed reading your Sandbox comments, especially the small print about Victoria and Gandhi. I'm amazed that you can do all that and so much more in a day's work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Echo Fowler. I don't agree with your close decision but I've closed enough move discussions to know that there is always someone who disagrees :) I think your sandbox summary was excellent and you did an outstanding job in examining all the arguments in what was a contentious move, way beyond the call of duty. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. It was a very interesting case, that really made me think about all that goes into deciding an article title. I think the table was awesome; it would be hard to overstate the power of that strategy. Somehow stripping the names away from the arguments just makes everything clearer, and I think that people rise to the occasion. I'd like to see that technique applied more often when we've got tough decisions to make.

Anyway, this wasn't a situation where it would be possible to please everyone. I hope everyone at least feels their arguments were taken into account, and that there was some fairness to the process. That's ultimately what makes these things stable, so I guess we'll see.

Cheers. :) -GTBacchus 07:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All points considered

You have not considered all points in the "For"- "Mahatma Gandhi" section in your sandbox? I think you missed them inadvertently. Please consider them and update the sandbox. 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What have you got in mind? -GTBacchus 12:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. A basic websearch results test or "ghit test" is overwhelmingly slanted towards Mahatma Gandhi. "Mahatma+Gandhi" 39,200,000 results vs. "Mohandas+Karamchand+Gandhi" 1,820,000 results (1:0.046)
2. Mahatma Gandhi is a world figure. Is this move about popular nationalism? List of roads named after Mahatma Gandhi is an example of the popularity of the title in India as well as the rest of the world. Other examples, Mahatma Gandhi District, Houston, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School (Fiji), Mahatma Gandhi Market, and various other institutions
3. Here is a counterpoint to point 8 ("For" Mohandadas Karamnchand Gandhi). In 2008 when there were no 'search suggestions', the traffic for Mahatma Gandhi was significantly higher than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I took all of that into account.

1. I know about "ghits", and how worthless they are. Good use of Google restricts to Google Books, or Google Scholar, or Google News, to filter out a lot of the unreliable sources. Even in those searches, "Mahatma" comes up more often, and that's why I said it is preferred under recognizability.
2. The "popular nationalism" argument is a canard and a red herring. No decisions here are being made based on nationalism, no decisions are made to avoid the appearance of nationalism, and I never suggested that anyone was motivated by nationalism. Arguments such as this should never even be made on Misplaced Pages. HOWEVER, I explicitly took both sides of this argument into account, down at the very bottom, under "Other arguments". I give the whole "nationalism" tangent almost zero weight.
3. This is just a restatement of how much more common "Mahatma" is, and I took that fully into account.

I hope this clarifies matters. No points were ignored, although not everything was copied and pasted to my sandbox. I read it all, and I thought about it all. -GTBacchus 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled

I did not participate in this discussion, but I just read your sandbox analysis and I am deeply puzzled. I don't have time for a full response right now, but I must mention that your interpretation of concision seems especially contrived to favor some predetermined preference in this case. I mean, concision is clearly defined to mean that shorter titles are preferred. Among those being considered, how this does not favor the one that is clearly the shortest, Gandhi, is beyond explanation. Of course "a full name is 'concise' too", but just a surname is even more concise. Come on!

There are other similar problems in your analysis, but that's probably the most obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is "contrived to favor some predetermined preference", because I have no predetermined preference. Therefore it's impossible that I would contrive something for that reason. If you think I'm a biased closer, please say so quite directly, and I'll request review of my close at WP:AN, as I always do when challenged.

The point of "concise" is not that we choose the very shortest title available. It's that titles not be overly long. A person's full name is not overly long. Before you go quoting the text of WP:AT to me about conciseness, remember that I'm in a very privileged position regarding knowledge the original intent of the authors of the Principal Naming Criteria.

What you may consider an "obvious" "problem" in my analysis might be your own opinion, you know? That's a dangerous word, because once you say something is "obvious", you're calling anyone who doesn't see it somehow dumb. To me, none of this is "obvious", because there are obviously intelligent people disagreeing about it. -GTBacchus 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've requested review anyway, because this is the second challenge to my close. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of controversial move request?. I hope you realize that this would have happened no matter how I closed the thing. -GTBacchus 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I chose my words carefully. In particular, I did not say anything actually was contrived. I said "seems especially contrived". Seems means "gives the impression", and that's the impression I, for one, got.

When you say "concision" means titles are not supposed to be overly long, I believe you're thinking of WP:precision, which says titles are not to be overly precise (which, by the way, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi arguably is).

It's true that "the point of 'concise' is not that we choose the very shortest title available", but that's a straw man since that's not what I said. Concision says, quite simply, "titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer." "Gandhi" is shorter. "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is longer. We expect the shorter (all other criteria assumed equal). That is obvious.

That's the point of weighing the criteria. No criterion alone is decisive. But when we evaluate how any one criterion applies to the choices being considered, we must look at it alone. Regardless how much weight we give concision, it weighs in favor of the shorter one. That doesn't mean other criteria don't weigh more and indicate an alternative, but to deny that concision favors the shorter (especially the much shorter, as in this case) is not giving concision any weight; it's ignoring it altogether. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I was certainly not thinking of precision, I was thinking of concision. You seem to be giving the weight of law to the words "titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer". Those words are just something we wrote down one day. They were not handed down to Moses, and it's almost entirely certain that they're not the best way of expressing the principles involved.

To me, it is extremely "obvious" that our policies should not be read legalistically. It's very "obvious" that a full name is not a problem under "concision". It's "obvious" that I didn't ignore concision, but that I think of it in a less strictly by-the-words way than you do. It's "obvious" that my thinking of it that way is reasonable, and in line with the intent of the policy.

Regarding the relative weights of criteria, those vary from situation to situation. In this case, none of the titles was a problem under concision, so concision weighed nothing. Also in this case, "Mahatma" won under recognizability. However, the weight of that criterion is diminished by the fairly high level of recognizability of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", which is very familiar to a large proportion of educated people on this planet. -GTBacchus 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.S. Your warning, " remember that I'm in a very privileged position regarding knowledge the original intent of the authors of the Principal Naming Criteria" smacks of WP:OWN. I shouldn't need to remind you that whatever was the original intent, consensus changes, and it says what it says. Here is an example from last October where another editor clearly interpreted conciseness to simply mean what it says, shorter titles are expected, since he says conciseness favors "Queen Victoria" over "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" and "Victoria of the United Kingdom".

By the way, I'm not asking for a review, at least not yet. I'd like to finish my analysis first. At that point, if I feel your decision is in error, I suspect I'd first try to persuade you to reverse, before appealing for a review. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't "own" it, B2c, I just know what happened. I was there. I know that consensus can change, but it's not clear that it has changed in this case! One person interpreted concision according to a strict reading of the words. That doesn't mean that consensus favors a strict reading of the words. It could just mean that people are easily led by overly rule-looking language. We certainly know that to be true.

It's not at all clear that consensus has changed to demand strict literal readings of rules here, i.e., that the lawyers have won. It has never been consensus to treat our policies as statutory law, because IAR still stands.

As far as the review, I always ask for review when my closings are challenged - no matter what the challenge looks like. It's not an escalation, and it's not a big deal. It's just what I always do. -GTBacchus 18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that someone else, somewhere, at some time, interpreted concision to not mean that shorter is preferred (all other factors held equal), but that "titles not be overly long?" That when none of the titles in contention are "overly long", even if one is significantly longer than the others, that concision does not indicate the shorter title is preferred. Heck, can you provide any evidence that even you ever interpreted it that way before this case? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any evidence like that. Maybe I'll think of it or find it later, but I don't know when this has come up before. This experience will provide some evidence of what the community thinks of my reading of the spirit of the policy. So far I know that one editor finds it reasonable, and one disagrees with it. No more have commented yet on that particular point. -GTBacchus 18:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for motivating me to fucking quit working in Requested Moves. I won't, because I'm one stubborn bastard, but that's what I'm getting from this interaction right now. I think you should close about a thousand move requests, deal with all the static that comes up, and then come back and tell me I'm fucking everything up. Spit.

Misplaced Pages is not made of "rules", and it never will be. That is a beautiful thing, and one day, you'll understand this. For now, just think about how your words come across to other people. Nobody here is just a screen name; we're human beings, and we react in predictable ways. Think about it. -GTBacchus 10:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the argument, and despite the profanity, Nobody here is just a screen name; we're human beings is a profound statement. Yesterday I too was wondering about the same thing, are we just virtual beings with a username? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reread this section and I honestly don't understand how I became a bee under your bonnet, or what this has to do with whether WP has "rules". I simply question your interpretation of the Concision criterion to mean that "A person's full name is concise" (your rule), and, thus the full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is no less concise than Gandhi. By that reasoning George Herbert Walker Bush is no less concise than George H. W. Bush, Wladziu Valentino Liberace is no less concise than Liberace, and Madonna Louise Ciccone is no less concise than Madonna. Is that how you really see it? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that none of those titles present a problem in terms of concision. I'm not talking about concision in a vacuum, I'm talking about it as it meaningfully applies to article titles here, and the difference in concision between "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" and "Gandhi" is not anything we need to be concerned with. Neither name falls afoul of the concision criterion. I look at "Gandhi" and ask, "is this concise enough?", and I answer "yes". I look at "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", and I ask, "is this concise enough?", and I answer "yes". The point of the concision criterion is not to distinguish between cases like those; it's to distinguish wordy titles from reasonable ones. A full name is not "wordy" to an extent that we need to be concerned about at all. I didn't say that "Gandhi" is no more concise than the full name, if all we care about is the definition of the word "concise". However, I don't care one bit about the definition of the word "concise" except insofar as it applies to article titles on Misplaced Pages. In that sense, the criterion does not, to my mind, based on my observations of community decisions, distinguish between those two choices. If you had never seen a "concision criterion" written down, would you look at a person's full name and say, "oh that's too long". The point of the criterion is to avoid things that are too long.

The other examples are, of course, each their own thing. "Madonna Louise Ciccone" is considerably less recognizable than "Madonna"; same for Liberace. Both names for Bush are fine. None of these options that you've presented falls afoul of the concision criterion, to my mind, based on my observations of community decisions.

When we wrote that criterion down, we weren't making a rule; we were making an educated guess about de facto naming standards that we were trying to abstract from a thousand varied experiences. We, with 100% certainty, got it wrong. Those criteria are guaranteed to be wrong. Neither you nor I nor anyone has ever actually seen a correct set of naming criteria. What I was trying to abstract when I wrote "concise" on that page was not the difference between "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" and "Gandhi". It was the difference between wordy titles and titles that just get to the point. The letter of the law is a terrible approximation of reality, and that's why reading policy pages around here is like huffing rat poison: it's a bad idea. If you literally ignore them, like the policy recommends, and read the community instead, then you'll be much more on the right page. -GTBacchus 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This helps. This not a case of literal interpretation, which I abhor. I'm just trying to establish what the words means. I suggest the current descriptor -- "titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer." -- is overly simplistic, inadequate and misleading. I'm sure we could do much better. Even "avoid wordy titles" is much better, I suggest. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice this while posting below. I agree that the criterion could use re-wording. Now we're playing the right game. Use your knowledge of community standards to correct what the rules say, and then try not to believe too strongly in what you just wrote down. -GTBacchus 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you said, at WP:AN: "We really have to agree on what Natural and Concise mean and how they are to be applied -- and state that clearly at WP:CRITERIA -- or we're never going to get consensus on anything." That is entirely incorrect.

We need to read community decisions, notice consensus where it happens, and then abstract principles from it. We do not reason top-down; we abstract bottom-up. If you're trying to use the letter of the rule to understand what the rule means, then you've got it backwards. The letter of the rule is pretty much always wrong. If you take it as an approximate guess made by a fallible human who was trying imperfectly to express real criteria that we don't yet understand, then you're on the right page. There was not a consensus for the one-word name; if those criteria hadn't been written down yet, would people be arguing that a person's full name is somehow too long? Since I've never seen people making those arguments, I say that's not a de facto standard. The only reason someone would make that argument is if they read the criteria and then tried to apply them literally. It's a bad idea; you really shouldn't read policy pages at all, until you're ready to start correcting them based on your knowledge of de facto community standards. Then you'll realize just how thin and insubstantial those pages are. -GTBacchus 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how what you said explains how what I said is "entirely wrong" (or wrong at all for that matter). I agree with everything you said, except for the part about what I said being entirely wrong. I think you're conflating "We really have to agree on what Natural and Concise mean and how they are to be applied -- and state that clearly at WP:CRITERIA" with something like "literal rule following". Understanding what something means, and being clear about it, is quite different from literal rule following, which, again, I abhor. Understanding what it means and being clear about it also does not mean top-down rather than bottom-up. We determine meaning bottom-up, but then reflect it in the rules as clearly as possible. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We also have to remember that the reason we have policy and guidelines is so that those who do take the time to determine meaning bottom-up can convey that knowledge and information to those who don't take that time. For them, we need to try to be as clear as we reasonably can. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I seem to have some kind of knee-jerk reaction when I see people talk about policy in certain ways. This is something I could think more about before I tell more people that they're "entirely wrong". Interesting... -GTBacchus 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving

I’ve created the article Index of Ottoman Empire-related topics on 24 June, 2010. On 11 October 2010 somebody proposed to remove the article to Outline . But the proposal was not supported and the notice was removed on 26 June 2011. Now I see that you have moved the article as a result of a second discussion. Well, wouldn’t it be better if I was also notified of the discussion. Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another article move

There is another article move proposal. Please look at it (I hope I am not breaking rules). We can see another demo of how consensus is judged. Perhaps. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about "breaking rules". You're supposed to be ignoring those anyway. I'm going to click on your link now and see what's there. -GTBacchus 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It looks like I got there too late, and someone else closed it. I was visiting a friend who was in town from South Korea for the last day-and-a-half. I only get to see him every couple of years, and I've been offline accordingly. Many move requests come and go, though; I'll be checking on the backlog before long, and we'll have plenty of examples to look at. -GTBacchus 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Use English

You wrote "On the English Misplaced Pages, article titles are written in English." That is not entirely true. WP:EN advises using the name most commonly used in English sources not that it necessarily always use English. Luftwaffe is the accepted English common usage of the German Air Force. Marcus Qwertyus 22:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've cut that sentence, as it didn't really add anything. -GTBacchus 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I appreciate your concern, and I do agree. Trust me, I do not always use profanities in my edit summaries, you could check. I admit I was upset in real-life at the times of my reverts, and it mirrored here. Thanks for the care :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Hope you're having a good weekend. :) -GTBacchus 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Suggestions? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, you should know I purged an uncivil comment . --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2008_Mumbai_terrorist_attacks#Requesting_Move_2

Can you close or relist? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice timing - I'm reading that discussion right now. -GTBacchus 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahhaha sorry, and thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with China

Hi; you appear to be quite experienced with contentious article naming disputes.. do you have a recommendation on how to proceed in the one going on at Talk:China? I asked about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well... I can't make any promises, but I'll have a look. -GTBacchus 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how far you are willing to involve yourself with this, but if you are willing to informally mediate (or whatever you would like to call it!) then would it be a good idea if you laid done one or two rules and ask people to follow them? I ask because there's an obvious issue that points some people see as redundant may not be so to others, which causes issues if involved editors are changing arguments in the table. I'm not excusing myself from anything, but in my opinion it would be useful if you told editors to let you deal with repetitive points or something similar to that, just on procedural basis. I've been part of one longrunning dispute, about organisation of the List of sovereign states page, which finally got somewhere when our mediator started to actively moderate our discussion, redacting parts of our posts which slipped into personal attacks or were unrelated. If you don't wish to take that sort of role, that's your decision of course, just a suggestion on my part from that experience. As another point, what is the next step in the process? Will each point be discussed with yourself (or another uninvolved editor) concluding each debate individually, before brining all the salient points together again? Thanks for you time, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I've just added a section to the talk page regarding the removal of points from the table, and addressing the handling of uncivil statements.

As for the next step... that's trickier. These things are kind of unpredictable. Sometimes, once the arguments are all on display in their "Sunday best", someone think of a previously un-considered solution, and that's great. This doesn't seem super-likely to happen in this case.

When the table settles down, I'm going to read the whole thing carefully, and then post my comments about it. Also at that time, it would be good to post a few notes around the Wiki inviting uninvolved editors to peruse the table and also make comments. Then I expect I'll propose a solution, and we'll see what people think of that. I believe that allowing everyone to have their perspective considered and seen by all will give us the best chance at stability, whichever solution we end up choosing. -GTBacchus 17:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copying from your statistics question and adding green font to the notes about the points, as otherwise they may be confused with the brackets that are part of the points. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves...

Hi , GTBacchus.As you know, this use completely ignores Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and Misplaced Pages:Article titles. I want explatin to him these rules, but unfortunately my English is poor. Could you explatin to him ? Takabeg (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree

I just finished reading your comments about civility on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I completely agree with you. An admin said that I had coprophilia and never found anything wrong with it. Two recent examples are when I brought an editor to ANI for telling someone to f off. The admins made comments like "sigh" and "Seriously, Joe. Chill". They also told me that it was alright for the editor to tell the person to f off because the other editor was being disruptive. The same editor that I reported told me to f off also after I filed the report. When an admin did not discuss an MfD calmly, I said "Sorry for getting on your bad side". His response was, "Not my "bad side", my "you appear not to understand WP rules" side.". He also told me to read three policies which I already read. I explained to him that I understand Misplaced Pages policies since I participate in AfD, speedy deletion, create notable articles, am an autopatroller, expand articles, create and expand articles for DYK, am working on an article for Good Article status, revert vandalism, and nominated many user pages for deletion that were successful. One of his final comments was, "Whether or not you have appreciated WP policy elsewhere is irrelevant." Wow. Joe Chill (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move closing at Climate Research Unit

Thank you for a thoughtful, well-constructed closing argument. I specially think it was important to make the point of systemic/principle issues versus the specific content issues. I often found myself in that discussion having to address issues of principle, rather than content, and that leads me to believe that a wider systemic issue is at hand. That is beyond the POV warrior phenomena of only interpreting policy to support one's POV, I mean literally good faith differences on what policy should be being discussed. That the conversation can get derailed so easily is the policy's fault - the role of policy, IMHO, is to focus and narrow discussion and diminish such meta-discussions to accelerate and facilitate editing. It often fails spectacularly in this sense. I am begining to think that the whole policy system is broken - but things like the massive overhaul of WP:RS are positive signs. --Cerejota (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing Crêpe

GTBacchus, many thanks for attending to that difficult second RM, and especially for your closing remarks. (It took some considerable time and effort for me to do what I did, I must tell you.) That pair of RMs will make an excellent precedent for future reference. I'm also glad that you mentioned Erik Haugen; I have now posted something at his talkpage myself. My best wishes to you. Noetica 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit I did not read the new commentary, but there were over 25 comments today alone. That is a highly active discussion, and comments you made previously about this move indicate you are not uninvolved. I've reverted the close, and would appreciate it if you would move the page back and let an uninvolved admin close it after the discussion has settled. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, if you are concerned about some anomaly in the closure of this RM, why were you not concerned about the closure of the first RM, which was based in large part on manifestly flawed evidence from you? Why have you said nothing in answer to my painstaking refutations of that false evidence, absenting yourself from the present RM for the last five days or so? Why do you feel free to inconvenience so many of us so much, over such a tiny issue as a hat on a pancake? Please adopt a more mature and less disruptive attitude. Through your unanswerable carelessness, you have been the immediate cause of my losing a day's full-time real-life work, while you stayed silently away. Don't do that!

The closure of the present RM was a straightforward matter to be achieved expeditiously, once that faulty evidence was exposed. Please leave a good outcome alone.

Noetica 08:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything you posted, Noetica. I did not have that article on my watch list, apparently. No idea what you mean about flawed evidence from me, but I would like a chance to look at it and respond. If it's compelling, great. I'll check it out. I've been very busy in the real world and unable to keep at WP the last few days. I did just check in a bit earlier and I noticed this seciton on GTB's talk page and the close despite a huge flurry of edits in the last few days, especially today. It's highly unusual to close a discussion while it's still so active, no matter how long it has been open. I'm not asking for a reversal - just time for the discussion to settle down before it's closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GTB, thanks for the kind words; and thanks for your huge effort to keep the RM backlog so small. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Unfortunately, my revert of the close was reverted. So I opened an ANI: . ---Born2cycle (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there. Just because people are still actively beating it, doesn't mean the horse is alive. -GTBacchus 14:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it's a strong indicator - the strongest we have - that consensus is still developing. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss this in one place at a time. Due to your initiating a thread there, that place is ANI. Okay? -GTBacchus 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For staying as cool as the proverbial cucumber during the dramafest whipped up by a dissenter, I would award you this barnstar. You work in general at RM is appreciated, and how you resolved this case (including the rationale thereof) is especially commendable. Ohconfucius 01:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's one I've never seen before. Thanks very much! -GTBacchus 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned; your closure is unacceptable. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Trebizond Vilayet

Hello, I was hoping to have you follow up on Trebizond Vilayet (and other related articles). The changes are still being made despite your request that we hold back. I'd like to get this resolved because so many articles are affected by the decision which needs to be made about name selection. Ordtoy (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)