User talk:Aervanath/Archive 10

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg

Can I ask why this image was kept? The issue of many of the image's elements being completely replaceable was not at all addressed. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I could see, there wasn't a consensus on that. You asserted that they were replaceable, another editor asserted that they weren't, but nobody actually went farther and provided any more direct reasoning beyond bare assertions on the matter. So I think it was a clear "no consensus" close. Given the lack of consensus, you can feel free to re-nominate it for deletion at any time.--Aervanath (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lack of consensus on the use of a non-free image is clearly a delete. See bullet 3.1 of enforcement section of the non-free content criteria- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." If no one could demonstrate why the image is irreplaceable (it clearly is- we have non-free images of people showing a specific pose- why couldn't we have a picture by a Wikipedian showing that?) it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Milburn, the image is for the purpose of supporting commentary from the False Fire documentary - to help the reader understand a central piece of information the documentary conveys. Two of the images are of a historic incident - one that took place in 2001 and clearly not reproducible. Note image D is not something we could reproduce. The rest are low-resolution captures from the same 45 minute documentary ( which has already been broadcast multiple times to the public, and is also available for free download on many websites ) - and is clearly fair-use. We have to draw those from the documentary because we are presenting there, the perspective of the documentary ( not our personal perspective). If we create our own set of images - how could it possibly capture what the documentary states? Wouldn't it be a mere OR composition? To make my point clearer, - could we present snapshots wikipedia users have taken for the purpose of discussing the perspective of a BBC documentary? That would amount to just OR. Further, this is a completely non-commercial work, broadcast multiple times to the public on NTDTV, from which we are taking just 6 low resolution frames.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that I have added the below to the image description to clarify why it is fair use.:

According to US law Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, there are 4 factors:

• 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (This image is not for commercial use)
• 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (The source is from a docmentary, which has already been broadcasted to the public multiple times on NTDTV, and is made available for free download on several websites.)
• 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (These are just 6 snapshots from the original approx 45 min video. If we use the whole video or a substantial portion of it, then it may not constitute fair use.)
• 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Considering 2, and 3 above, there's not much effect upon the market value of original work since the original work is not for commercial purpose.)

Kindly refer to http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html ..

"Non-replaceable. Composite Image used to present the perspective of the False Fire documentary . Images and commentary have to be drawn from the same to ensure fidelity to source."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that image C and image D are irreplaceable, but I fail to see why any others are- A, B and F would be very easily replaceable. And no, a compilation of images to demonstrate the points made by the documentary would not amount to original research. Say, hypothetically, a documentary stated "John sat on a chair, as shown by this image, not on a stool, which would look like this" we could easily show a free image of someone sitting on a stool alongside the original image of John, rather than the documentary's image of some nobody on a stool. How the documentary displays the alternatives is not important- they are there to show what such a thing would look like, not what a specific incident did look like. As such, portions of this image should be replaced with a free alternative, or, if none are currently available, deleted. (On another note, I don't care what some law from a country I haven't visited, passed before I was born says. I work with Wikipedia policies; if the Foundation wants to lay down the law, so be it, but, until then, I don't care. On another note, non-free material is non-free material. It can be non-commercial, given to us, shown on every website of the 'net or whatever- if the copyright holder hasn't released it, it's non-free.) J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

C,D&E are irreplaceable. As for A,B and F - theoretically we could create photos that look similar - but how could we be the authority to say, "this is the posture"? We could strive to imitate what the pictures from the documentary show - but then to go ahead and claim, "this is the right posture ( and I am accurately imitating what I saw in the doc)" would be just plain original research - irrespective of whether you have managed to imitate them accurately or not. How could any wikipedia user be an authority on the issue? Who is gonna certify the posture was imitated accurately enough? It is just about fair-use and ensuring fidelity to the source. To be noted that the composite adds a lot in terms of info to the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Using that logic, pretty much any self-taken image on Wikipedia could be deleted. Who's to say that that was said celebrity? Who's to say that it is this flower? We already use free images of people in the lotus position. On another note, how on Earth is E irreplaceable? Last time I checked, the Chinese military still existed, and was still somewhat high profile. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the relevant policy, I have concluded that J Milburn is, in fact, correct. A sufficient case was not made during the FFD discussion for why this image is irreplaceable. Nor has it been sufficiently proven in the current discussion, so I will go back and alter the outcome of the FFD discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

Hi, thanks for closing this debate. The template has already been subst'ed and is no longer in use on articles. I probably could delete it myself but, considering that debate there, that might not be the smartest move. :)Garion96 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your significant effort in reducing the backlog at WP:RM!

—harej (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just doing what I enjoy. :) --Aervanath (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking info re your closing of the DRV on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_5#File:Phillipbrutus.jpg

Thank you for taking the time to plow through this DRV and the sources cited. Could you please expand on your reasoning, with a few sentences providing more detail? You wrote: "The consensus is that the file in question has not been proven to be public domain".

I expected to see a no consensus close. A dozen or so folks are not part of that consensus, per the DRV. A few posters with views on either side of the public domain question posted to the DRV page.

Given

1. the effort many people put into the DRV - on both sides - and

2. the fact that many other images have been and can be expected to be subject to debate because of the exact same issue, some of which were ruled public domain per PD-FLGov, and

3. I provided a detailed argument for why it is in the public domain and would like to know where it falls short ("Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." is a quote from WP:Consensus ) and

4. a DRV is supposed to be closed by weighing the arguments - my purpose in calling for the DRV was mainly to see if I could build WP:Consensus regarding this class of images, (WP:NOTAVOTE), so I'd like to know which arguments you did and did not find compelling,

I don't think significantly more detail too much to ask for... (Please expand the reasoning in [1]the DRV itself] (or here). Note: I have no intention of continuing/reopening the discussion, or beating a dead horse, but do seek a more substantive explanation. I'm not trying to make you change your mind; I want to hear what you think so that I and other editors can come to a common understanding.)--Elvey (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took me so long to reply. After going back and reviewing the discussion, my impression is (and was) that you failed to convince other editors that the original deletion was invalid. In order for a deletion decision to be overturned at DRV, there needs to be a consensus to do so; this necessarily implies that other editors have been convinced by your arguments, or supply other arguments to the discussion that support your desired result. However, this did not happen; you were the only one arguing for undeletion, and it was quite clear that no other editors agreed with your point of view. Hope that expands on my rationale a bit more. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I provided the names of a dozen others who agreed with me, but they argued elsewhere than on the DRV page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment: (Dcoetzee, JPG-GR) etc.) These other users did supply other arguments to the discussion that supported my desired result. I had expected a closer would have followed or counted or considered their (and my) views, rather than simply counted the votes, which is what your statement indicates you did. ("you failed to convince", "you were the only one"). No reply needed. --Elvey (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to evaluate the discussion as it was. And while discussions are not supposed to be votes, there's no possible way, without a strong overriding basis in policy, for an administrator to close a discussion in a manner that has only been advocated by one participant in that discussion. That would not be in keeping with WP:Consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

First of all, thank you for responding to the comment I left at User talk:Dekimasu. I particularly appreciate your interjection since he did not reply to me himself, unless he assumed your message was sufficient.

I also am contacting you, as an administrator, re: a bizarre situation I have encountered. Since July 2007, User:Giraffedata has been removing the phrase "comprised of" from what appears to be hundreds of articles. He explains his justification for doing so at great length at User:Giraffedata/comprised of. I briefly glanced at his talk page, and it appears that although there has been objection to his doing so, he continues with his campaign. As someone who as worked as a professional writer, proofreader, and editor over the years, I disagree with his belief the phrase is gramatically incorrect. Does one simply ignore such an individual? Or does this require an adminstrator's intervention? Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We were taught at school that 'comprised of' is wrong (UK, 1960s). I would probably change it if I saw it in a Brit-Eng doc. Occuli (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here in the States it is considered acceptable [2] [3]. According to [4], "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Therefore, would you agree if the phrase is used in an article about an American subject, it should remain as is? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally change the English in any US or non-UK page unless there is a completely obvious error. I have had a look at Giraffedata's edits and must confess that looking at 100s of changes of 'comprised of' to quite a variety of alternatives leaves one's senses reeling. 'The band's members were X, Y and Z' seems a better way of putting quite a number of instances ('the band comprised of X, Y and Z'). Giraffedata seems to have met the fiercest resistance with NZ-English. (I found 5000+ instances of 'comprised of' in article space so there is much to do ...) Occuli (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed that anyone would devote so much time and energy to what clearly is an obsession, especially when so many articles are in need of improvement in so many other ways. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes all kinds. :) I'll look into the matter and get back to you on this.--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, what he's doing isn't really outright disruptive. He's not actually changing to anything that's incorrect. I personally disagree with his position, but if that's how he wants to spend his time, and he's not actually damaging anything, then I don't see the point in making a big deal out of it.--Aervanath (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Issues

Hi Aervanath. I notice you have been looking at the recent article renaming at Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. You say that you'll give time for the most recent vote to reach a consensus before deciding if a page move revert is necessary. I would just like to advise you that there has, today, been a case of external canvassing on an Irish discussion board concerning this matter. There is a link to the external discussion at the article talk page. It is clear from the contributions so far that consensus is very unlikely to be reached, with or without the external canvassing. I would therefore ask you to consider renaming this page to the title that you descibe as 'B' in the discussion on your Talk page. LevenBoy (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I just posted above, I'll let the discussion stay open a little longer, then go back and evaluate it, including the allegations of canvassing, and try to parse out what, if any, consensus exists.--Aervanath (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfy

Could you restore the data on my deleted User Page so that I can grab the source? I thought I was writing in a sandbox (misinterpreted the Wiki sandbox link) and was trying to convert and play with one of my guides. I'll remove it as soon as I grab the source. Danr14 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The material has been restored to User:Danr14/Sandbox for your retrieval. It will be deleted again after 48 hours. Please try to keep your activities on Wikipedia centered around improving Wikipedia. Your input on actual articles would be appreciated. Non-encyclopedic stuff will be deleted. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason for your closing of Lnlwedding.jpg as endorsed

Hello, Aervanath. Will you explain why you closed this review as endorsed? Is it because you feel that consensus was to delete? If so, I state that despite four people being for endorse, three people were for overturn and I do not see how that is much consensus (unless you added in that copy-and-paste delete vote from the original deletion debate of this image, which still would not be much). Also, what about the arguments? I am simply not seeing how the votes for delete or endorse in either of the discussions are more valid than my arguments for keep and overturn. The Supercouple article right now simply does not convey the right essence any longer without an image of the supercouple who started the term (particularly of the point which the term was started, their groundbreaking wedding). I am not seeing why this image had to be deleted, while less important images within the article get to remain. In addition, there is the fact that the main reason this image was nominated for deletion was not even about its use in the Supercouple article (something I addressed and took care of).

If I want to upload this image again at a later date due to feeling that it is even more valid within whichever article I put it in, which may include the Supercouple article, will I be allowed to do that without getting into Wikipedia trouble? Or should I list this image at deletion review again at that later time? Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just coming back to say that S Marshall pretty much explained about all this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at S Marshall's talk page and seen your conversation with him, and he seems to have explained it quite well. If you do have further questions for me, feel free to ask.--Aervanath (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

Thanks for the suggestion, but my reason is that I don't want the old account name appearing on google searches, or being associated with my new account name. Therefore, I don't want the old name to redirect to this one. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. Are you going to go for every single one of your past signatures? That's going to take a heck of a long time!--Aervanath (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd of the Money Masters

I think the issue is misunderstood on the deleting the article "the Money Masters (film)". I did not argue that the article in it's previous form should be undeleted. I argued that there should be a new article reference to it in wikipedia based on its notoriety/notability. The participants in the discussions argued solely on errouneous issues such as the films content, which I belie is not how one verifies a film's notability on wikipedia. The next arguments were that there were no references to it online and that all such were selling it. This is also a errouneous claim, if one browses past the first two pages of google hits as with any commercial product or product for sale one gets to the actual references. The film is verifiably been commented upon by several economists and it currently has over a hundred thousand views if not more on sites such as google video and youtube. These are factual claims that can be verified by anyone. I have not been able to make any of the opponents state what evidence reference is needed to make the article acceptable and they have avoided all my points as if they did not exist and their responses have been derogatory towards me and so shallow and superficial so as to not make it possible to find out what they wanted that would make the article comply to their professed standards. I still am at a loss which arguments you and the rest have weighed in and I am really wondering who I or anyone else is to prsent a new improved version to. For the perhaps thousands people who turn to wikipedia after having seen the film for information on where and when this film appeared and any other facts, I can only conclude that you have made this as difficult to find out as possible. I find it disturbing to say the least when video games get more space on wikipedia than serious economists and films devulging historic facts no matter how much we disagree with the content. The content is not the issue. There are articles on wikipedia about Leni Riefenstahl and her films on wikipedia. The film is praised by Nobel Price Winner in the field of economics Milton Friedman, it does nothing but cite documented historic quotes and events. I do not believe that you will get others to change their minds or enter into a rational civil discussion on this, I just want to make a record of what you have committed here for posterity. I find it pretty revolting that reason and proper arguments do not have any impact on enough mature adults here anymore. Sincerely~. Nunamiut (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we must have been reading different discussions. In the deletion review, the prevalent concerns were not about the film's content, but were that not enough third-party, neutral, reliable sources had been provided to show the film's notability. If you could provide direct links to those sources, as opposed to just saying that they exist, that would go a long way towards convincing other Wikipedia editors that the film meets our criteria for inclusion. For comparison, see Loose Change (film)#References, which includes large amounts of links to independent coverage of that film. Even one or two links such as those would be sufficient to justify having an article on The Money Masters. Once you've identified those sources, I will be happy to help you move the article to its appropriate location. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

Hi, you recently removed the WP:RM and left an odd/interesting comment. You stated that if the AfD failed, you would move the article. Correct policy is that if a move request fails, then the article remains at its current title. If you've deleted the move request, then the move request failed. We're now onto a different processs, an AfD. When you say you will "move it back to the last stable name", what, in your opinion, is the "last stable name"? This is all a bit odd... --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After a long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators was changed to read:

...sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name...

In this case, the "last stable name" would be Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, which was its location when you initially filed the move request.--Aervanath (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. My move request was filed to return the article prior to the first bold move which put it at the British Isles title. My move request was to reverse that move. No other move request has been filed. Please note that the editor that performed that move to British Isles was very aware that his article move was controversial as he had been involved in a number of very controversial edits on the same subject at around the same time. Therefore to implement policy, my failed move request would result in the article being moved back to the stable title of Military history of the island of Britain. I repeat, there were no other move requests filed. Policy does not mention what should happen when an AfD fails, but it seems in this case that you have misinterpreted the timelines and the process. There is nothing in the new policy that supports returning the title to the "British Isles" title, as this controversial move is what kicked off this fuss in the first place. BTW, note that the original title of Military history of the island of Britain still links to the new article. Also note that all of the prior article titles such as British military history point to the latest title. None of these redirects would be correct if it pointed to the British Isles - it is clear what the original intent of the article creator was. --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The first "bold move" took place on 27 Sep 2008; there was not a single objection to it, until that of User:HighKing on 14 May 2009. Prior to that, on 1 Feb 2009 HighKing had enquired as to the possibility of another move. From 14 May 2009 the debate unfolded and there was clearly no consensus for any further move. Regardless, another "bold move" occurred to take the article to its present title; there were many objections to this move. It is this more recent "bold move" that is at issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy states that the article may discretionarily be put back to the "last stable name", which in this case is Military history of the island of Britain. This was the last move which was stable, was done according to proper procedure, and had consensus on the Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of this article title:

1. 2003-2007: British military history (duration: approx. 42 months)
2. February 17, 2007: moved to Military history of the United Kingdom by User:Bastin (bold move, no discussion on talk page) (duration: approx. 14 months)
3. April 15, 2008: moved to Military history of the peoples of Britain by User:Fishiehelper2 (proposed on talk page, moved after no reply, discussed on talk page after the fact, but not moved back) (duration: approx. 5 months)
4. September 27, 2008: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles by User:Setanta747 (bold move, no discussion on talk page) (duration: approx. 9 months)
5. February 1, 2009: User:HighKing suggests move to Military history of the people of Britain on talk page; User:LemonMonday objects in support of Military history of the peoples of the British Isles; no move occurs
6. May 14, 2009: User:HighKing proposes formal request for move to Military history of the United Kingdom (discussion still ongoing)
7. May 20, 2009, at 13:26 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Islands by User:Purple Arrow (bold move, no discussion on talk page)
8. May 20, 2009, at 14:07 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles by User:LevenBoy
9. May 20, 2009, at 14:13 UTC: moved to Military history of the peoples of the British Islands by User:Purple Arrow
10. May 20, 2009, at 22:09 UTC: article move-protected by User:Cirt

Since all of the moves prior to Setanta747's move were also "out of process", I see no reason to single out his move as somehow more objectionable than the others, and it has lasted longer than the title which he moved it from. Therefore it seems clear to me that Military history of the peoples of the British Isles is the most recent stable name. My hope, of course, is that this debate over what the most recent stable name was will become moot by either the result of the Afd or further discussion on the talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Setanta747's move is *more objectionable* that all the others is because of the use of the term "British Isles" in the title. If you check on Setanta747's history, you will find that he was a proud Irish and British editor that sometimes got on the wrong side of policy with passionate editing. He was well aware of the controversy of using particular names, and the policy of same. For example, not long after this article move, he moved Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland which caused uproar and was swiftly moved back. He also participated in the British military history taskforce and would have been aware of discussions there. This discussion clearly outlines an earlier decision to separate the British military history from Irish.

It is irrelevant that Setanta747's move wasn't noticed for a while - that was his entire intention to *not* follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies for contentious moves. Policy clearly states that contentious page moves must have a WP:RM filed, and if Setanta747 followed policy, this would have come to the attention of the proper audience and a proper discussion held.

I'd also like you to reply to the point I make about the guidelines you are interpreting and trying to apply. The guideline state that if a Bold move results in a subsequent move request that fails, then an administrator may use some discretion and move it back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time. The move request was mine to move the article back to Military history of the United Kingdom. The bold move was Setanta747's, moving the article to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles. Therefore the prior default name where it had been for a long time is the one previous to Setanta747's.

Finally, discretion on this matter must surely make it obvious that moving it back to Setanta747 title will reward an editor for not following process. I don't believe that the spirit of the administrator guidelines extends that far. --HighKing (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, I find it curious that you think moving the article back to Military history of the peoples of Britain wouldn't "reward an editor for not following process", since NONE of the moves up until Setanta747's were "in-process" moves. There were three bold moves in the history of the article, of which Setanta's was only the last. I think that you have hit the crux of the matter with your statement that

The reason why Setanta747's move is *more objectionable* that all the others is because of the use of the term "British Isles" in the title.

You disagree with the use of this term, and so object to the move as out-of-process. However, WP:RM is not a required process. You will find that a requirement to use WP:RM does not exist anywhere in Wikipedia guideline or policy. The only requirement is that article renames should enjoy a consensus. Editors are encouraged to be bold and make moves to the titles that they see as appropriate. If no one objects, then silence implies consensus. Setanta747's title was stable for nine months, which is longer than the one prior to it, so whether or not you find it objectionable, that is its proper title until there is a consensus to move it. As I said, I hope there will be a consensus to do that soon, and I think that your efforts would be more profitably turned in that direction rather than debating with me over this.--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no history on Wikipedia to show that using the term "Britain" is contentious. There is enormous evidence that the term "British Isles" is contentious. What's more, Setanta747 was very aware of that. Therefore there is a very real difference between being bold and being sneaky. You appear to be trying to argue that the move to the "British Isles" title would not have been a controversial move, or perhaps that Setanta747 would not have been of that opinion. Please review Setanta747's history of editing and you will clearly see that he was well aware of the contentious nature of the term, especially within articles and article titles. Silence means nothing especially when nobody seems to have seen or commented on the edit until I did.

Also, policy states

In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus.

And the policy goes on to provide 3 steps for that process:

1. Step 1 — Add move template to talk page
2. Step 2 — Create a place for discussion
3. Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list

It seems to me that WP:RM is part of the required process for contentious title moves.

I'm also awaiting your response to my pointing out that the Guidelines you refer to would not allow you to move the title back to the British Isles title. The move request I filed makes the "British Isles" title the contentious title, and therefore the previous title is the prior default name. --HighKing (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated my position quite clearly, and I feel no need to further justify it. I disagree that filing a move request automatically makes anything "contentious". How long would the move have to go unnoticed for it to qualify as an uncontroversial move? The title which you prefer was only there for five months, and was also an out-of-process move. I have reviewed Setanta747's history, and I agree that he has performed contentious edits in the past. However, looking at the other moves he has made, I see no pattern of inserting "British Isles" in titles of articles; in fact, this is the only move he made that involved that phrase, and I see no pattern in his move log that would imply that he has a history of "sneaky moves". The default name remains what it was before you filed your move request.--Aervanath (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate we have different points of view on this, and I respect you taking the time to help me understand your position better. But I also expect you to be reasonable. In light of your recent reply, it appears that you have merely entrenched your position. I believe we will need to get another opinion on this. BTW, I did not state that filing a move request automatically make anything "contentious". Instead I was pointing out that the policy for moving articles states that that a move request must be made for contentious moves. I also pointed out that Setanta747 was well aware of that his move request would have required a move request. Also, I did not state that Setanta747 had a history of inserting "British Isles" into titles, but he was aware of the contentious area involving Irish articles including the terms "Republic of Ireland" and "British Isles". In fact, it's impossible for any Irish/British editor that edits either of those types of articles to be unaware of it. Furthermore, there was a big edit war revolving around "British Isles" articles at that time, and it resulted in an ArbCom involvement less than a month later. That's the first point. The 2nd point is that your administrator guidelines do not give you scope for moving the article back to the "British Isles" title.

If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even.

Nowhere here are you given scope for returning the article to the "British Isles" title. No consensus exists to move it from the current "British islands" title, no consensus exists either for keeping it there, equally no consensus exists for the "British Isles" title, and no consensus exists for moving it. The closest we have for consensus is to move it back to a previous uncontentious title. I would think that discretion in this instance should tell you to avoid instability. Also, all the moves made can be reversed though, from a technical point of view, so your guidelines give you no reason to get involved. All content matters can be solved by the involved editors once consensus has been reached. It would set a dangerous precedent for an administrator to rule on content in this way, without consensus. --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<--I'm another admin\WP:RM regular, and I've been watching this discussion for a couple of days now. Aervanath is completely right when he said that when a move request to reverse an undiscussed bold move ends in no consensus, the general "policy" (in the non WP sense) is to move it back to the long-standing title. You yourself quote the line from the moving instructions that states as much. You can say that the "British Isles" was not the long-standing name all you want, but that doesn't make it so. 9 months is a pretty long time for someone to raise an objection to the new title. If you are not drawing that conclusion from the block of text you are quoting, then perhaps we need to reword it so that you do. Your last point doesn't make sense; you requested the move through WP:RM. You asked for an admin to get involved in the matter. You shouldn't cry foul when the admin disagrees with your position. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, thank you for getting involved and providing your opinion. I believe you misunderstand the situation. Chronologically, the sequence of events is a little confusing. Explanation below. --HighKing (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the situation is pretty clear to me, the move log is easy enough to follow. Referring to the numbered list Aervanath posted above, #7, this move, is the "recent bold move", not the move to "British Isles" 9 months ago. Any controversial move from that title had to be discussed (not necessarily through WP:RM though); Tfz moved the page despite the ongoing discussion that had not yet reached a conclusion. Therefore, if the page is kept and there is no consensus for either the current title ("British Islands") or another, the page should default back to "British Isles", since that was the last stable name—namely, because the move to "British Islands" wouldn't have even happened if Tfz had followed procedure wrt the move process (i.e., don't move a page until the discussion has ended with a consensus to do so). And then we wouldn't have had a problem :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So which guidelines are you looking at? Cos they're not the same ones that I'm looking at which apply to move requests that have been filed.... --HighKing (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The same ones you're looking at and quoting:

"If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even."

Moves that are 9 months old definitely do not fall under the "recent bold move" category; on the other hand, the move performed by Tfz last week certainly does. Had the request not been superseded by the AfD, it would most likely have been closed as "No consensus," and Tfz's move reversed. That is all in accordance with Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, which guidelines are you looking at? The guidelines are for move requests that have been filed. The only move request that has been filed is mine, looking to overturn the "British Isles" move request. Your interpretation appear s to be trying to reverse a move request without consensus. I understand what you are saying - I just disagree that the guidelines (with admin discretion) would allow you to move the title back to "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was at Military history of the peoples of the British Isles; you requested that the article be moved to Military history of the peoples of Britain. During the discussion, Tfz moved the page to the current title (the "recent bold move"). Since the move request would have likely resulted in a "no consensus" closure, the page should have defaulted to the last stable name—the "British Isles" version. That is standard operating procedure at WP:RM, and outlined in the guideline page we have now both quoted. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. If a move request had been filed after the "British Islands" title you'd be correct. The guidelines do not appear to include a case where a move request is then followed by a bold move (and then an AfD). It's the other way around in terms of order where it's bold move followed by move request. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that when a bold move has achieved "stability" (i.e., it's been around for more than a few weeks, numerous editors have come and gone without objecting, etc.) it has the same status of a properly filed and closed move request, at least de facto, if not de jure. It no longer is a "recent bold move"; it's a just a "bold move" that, through lack of objection over a long period of time, has achieved some form of consensus. That there was no move request after the "British Islands" move is irrelevant. The move was made in the midst of a discussion that by no means would have ended in support for that title; it should therefore have been reversed at the closure of the request (granted the AfD had not been filed). Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Parsecboy has pretty much stated exactly what I've been thinking, HighKing: somehow you and I are reading the exact same block of text and getting opposite interpretations from it. I'm sorry you feel that I've "merely entrenched my position"; in fairness to me, you haven't changed your position during this discussion, either. :) I'm not sure what more we can reasonably say to each other on this topic. I've read your last post two or three times now, and I still disagree with your position. There is actually nothing in policy that says move requests must be filed; it is just generally advisable. I would go through your last post and refute it sentence by sentence, but I would generally just be repeating what I said in my previous replies. I realize you're probably going to feel like I'm giving you a brush-off by not responding in detail, and I apologize for that. I'm just not sure how to reply to you without repeating what I've already said. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the important thing is we're not falling out over it :-) You are correct that in one place it states clearly that move requests don't have to be filed, but policy states elsewhere that In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. Further on it states If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial and technically possible, please feel free to move the page yourself and points out If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. So what's the policy for "controversial". Well, in the helpfile for moving, it states In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, especially if you believe the move might be controversial. So it seems clear to me that all controversial moves should be listed.

As to the interpretation of the guidelines, as I said above, I want to be sure that we're clear on the chronology of things. For handiness, here's the full paragraph from the guidelines (bolding is mine):

Determining consensus on requested moves is somewhat of a contentious area. In general, there is a consensus that there is no minimum participation required. This isn't like articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting. For most moves, there is no need to make a request at all; the need for requesting the move arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is patently out of keeping with naming conventions or otherwise is in clear conflict with policy. If objections have been raised, then the discussion should be evaluated just like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus normally means that no change happens'. However, sometimes a requested move results from opposition to a recent bold move from a long existing name that cannot be undone. Where there is no consensus on these types of moves, 'discretionarily the article should be moved back to the prior default name where it had been for a long time to set the playing field back to even. If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it.

This is in relation to move requests that have been filed, not AfD's or other processes. So the chronology of events:

• Title at "British military history"
• Title at "UK"
• Title at "Britain" (the prior default name where it had been for a long time)
• Title at "British Isles" (the recent bold move)
• Move request filed to return to "UK" or "British miliary history" (the requested move resulting from opposition to a recent bold move)
• Article moved to "British islands"
• AfD filed

The guidelines above are in relation to consensus on a filed moved request.

The guidelines are for determining consensus for move requests. No move request has been filed since "British islands", only an AfD. BTW, my move request has been deemed to have failed and the AfD process has now superceded it. What you are proposing to do would only make sense if the move request was filed *after* the move to "British islands" *and* if the community of editors hadn't embarked on a new process. As I said above, trying to shoehorn the guidelines so as to return the title to "British Isles" would not be supported by any interpretation of the guidelines, and in any case, goes against the spirit of the guidelines which is to "set the playing field back to even". The only reasonable way to set the playing field back to even is to return the title back to the last time the title was discussed and a consensus appeared to exist - which was to "Britain". --HighKing (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, could you provide a link to the policy which you are referencing above? Neither Wikipedia:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators nor Help:Moving a page are policy, and as such are not exactly authoritative. Or maybe there is a confusion here over the definition of the term "policy"; I always use it to mean only pages which are marked with the {{policy}} tag, maybe you are using it in a more general sense?--Aervanath (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've included links for the quotes, and I misused the word "policy" several times. Search and replace with "guidelines". --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

HighKing, I think our disagreement turns on our interpretation of the word "recent". When I am talking about the recent bold move, I am talking about the most recent one, to British Islands. You are talking about the one before that, the one to British Isles, which, being 9 months old, I don't view as recent. Lets take this to a more abstract level, so we can take the immediacy out of this, and evaluate policy independent of this situation. Here's my and Parsecboy's interpretation of the guideline, for a hypothetical article X:
Situation 1:

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A short amount of time passes
4. Another editor protests this move, but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. The move request reaches no consensus, so the closing admin/editor should probably move the article back to title "A".

Situation 2:

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A substantial amount of time passes
4. An editor decides that they prefer the previous title, "A", but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. The move request reaches no consensus, so the closing admin/editor should leave the article at title "B".

You will see that the key difference between the two situations is the amount of time that passes before the move request. You may also note that I have not included the term "controversial" anywhere in my analysis, as the controversiality of any move is subjective. So, to clarify our assumptions before we proceed, I have some questions for you that I'd appreciate your answers to, so we can establish common ground to continue this:

Question one: Do you agree that the "British Islands" title was moved to without consensus, and therefore should be reverted? From our conversation, you seem to have implied that you do, and that we're just discussing where it should be reverted to, but I'd like to confirm that explicitly.

Question two: Do you disagree with my abstract analysis of the guideline above? If so, could you give a similarly itemized breakdown of what you think the various situations are, and how you think they should be treated?

Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you again for taking the time with this. I agree that the "British Islands" title should be reverted. While the strict meaning of the term is probably correct for the content of the article, it doesn't fit with WP:COMMONNAME. So yes, we are discussing what name it should be reverted to.

As to my abstract analysis of the guidelines - I agree with both Situation 1 and 2 above. My point is that the guidelines only refer to filed moved requests. Therefore:

Situation 3 (from Situation 2)

1. Article X was created at title "A", or has been there for a substantial length of time
2. Article X is then boldly moved to title "B"
3. A substantial amount of time passes
4. An editor decides that they prefer the previous title, "A", but doesn't or can't revert the move before filing the move request.
5. Article X boldly moved to title "C"
6. Move request fails to achieve consensus and simultaneously...
7. Community kicks off an AfD
8. The AfD fails (probably). Article stuck at title "C"

Observation 1. No move request was filed for title "C", therefore the guidelines can only refer to the move request after title "B". Since the guidelines refer to resetting the title to what it was 2 titles before the move request, this is title "A".

Observation 2. If a move request had been filed for title "C" and no consensus reached, then the guidelines could be applied using admin discretion.

Question 1. What should an administrator do in this case? Observation 1 would mean that the title can't simply be moved back to title "B". But they would support moving the title back to title "A".

Question 2. Would the community accept either title "A", "B", or title "C" in any case? Is there a likelihood that the article title will stabilize on any title? What is the closest to a consensus that exists now?

Question 3. Are there any other guidelines? (Hint: The community started WP:BISLES a while back, but suspended it until WT:IECOLL was finished first, as both issues appear intertwined. ArbCom are actively involved).

Once again, thank you for your calm and reasoned approach, and especially your patience. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the point in the analysis where our disagreement lies: I believe that the second sentence of your Observation 1 is incorrect. The guidelines do not refer to setting the title to what it was 2 titles before the move request, they refer to setting it back to the title as it was when the move request was initiated. (This is applicable in Situations 2 and 3, but not 1.) I think that everyone involved in this case will agree, as you and I have, that title "C" was arrived at inappropriately. If the Afd fails, then an administrator should reset the article to title B, back at the point where it was when the move request was first opened. At this point, another move discussion is started, with the title exactly as it was when the first one was originally filed. Hopefully, the second time around, consensus will be achieved and the involved editors will be able to agree on the proper title, whether it is A, B, C, or some new title. If there are any other naming guidelines that apply to the case, that would certainly help the situation considerably. The only naming convention I found that might be applicable would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), but it doesn't really help much in this situation, I think. I was going to advise you to solicit opinions at WT:MILHIST, but then I went there and saw that you already did, with a seemingly (I only skimmed the discussion) equal lack of consensus as on the talk page of the article. So, basically, once the article is back at title B, it is up to the involved editors to figure out a compromise title that would better it. I must confess I don't really want to get involved in the larger disputes about the British Isles; I'm coming at this purely from a process-wonky point of view. :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aervanath. And yes, you most definitely don't want to get involved - for the most part, it's a horrible emotive-led irrational nationalistic stupid debate involving disruptive editors and entrenched positions. All future UN negotiators should cut their teeth on some of these topics first. As to the guidelines, at least we've now identified where we're disagreeing over the guidelines. I've reread what I wrote, and I've reread the guidelines, and I don't think I'm making a mistake about this. The guidelines observe the following chronology of events:

1. Article X at title "A"
2. Bold Move - Article X at title "B"
3. Requested move filed to revert to title "A"
4. Consensus fails. Article still at title "B"
5. Admin discretion - reverts title to "A"

So I'm correct in that the guidelines reset the title back to what it was 2 titles before the move request - which is title "A". Again, I reiterate, there was no move request filed for title "C" in Situation 3 above. Now maybe the title can be moved to "B" using a different guideline - just not the one you've pointed out to me.

My own opinion would be that since it appears that nobody likes the current title, editors from "both sides" are more likely to reach a consensus on a new title. The danger of reverting to "B" is that it won't have a consensus either to keep or to change, but you will have inadvertantly created a "victor" and lost the opportunity to "force" both sides to compromise, negotiate, discuss, and reach agreement. It might even lay the ground for other article edit-wars also being resolved. Take a look at WT:IECOLL for a peek into how difficult the process is.

Thank you again. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though we're not making progress here. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article, so I would like to request it be renamed to title 'B', as per the rationale described above, and take it from there. I favour an eventual name of Miltiary History of the British Isles, but that can be decided once the debate detailed on this page has been concluded. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) HighKing, in your last post, you don't make a distinction between the different situations that I outlined above: the length of time between the bold move and request to reverse it. If there had only been a week or so between Setanta747's move and your request, then I probably would reset it to the title as it was before he moved it. However, since it was there for 9 months, that's too long a period for me to ignore it as the most recent stable name.--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aervanath, I think there's a danger of muddying all the various things that were said together, and losing the clarity that we gained from going one step at a time. I have not distinguished between Situation 1 or Situation 2 above, because the admin guidelines would apply to both those cases - I categorically agree with your interpretation here. But you have not replied to Situation 3 above, nor responded to the point that the guidelines *cannot* apply to a situation like this because of the reasons outlined. --HighKing (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Situation 3, to me, has exactly the same outcome as Situation 2; the article stays at the title "B", which is the title that was extant after step 3: "a substantial amount of time passes". So I don't really see a As for the other reasons you cited, having to do with WT:IECOLL, I understand the frustrating process that this has been for everyone involved, although my participation in this is purely incidental. I would still like to assume good faith that the editors of the page in question can come to a compromise on a suitable title. If you like, I will refrain from moving the page back to the "British Isles" title until another discussion has taken place, as I suppose there is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We're currently polling the editors for their preferred title on the Article Talk page.

Perhaps you are purposefully being oblique in your response, but you have not "walked through" the policy in relation to Situation 3 (as I have above). If you do as well, you should reach the same conclusion, and you'll see that a move back to title "B" is simple not supported by application of the admin guidelines. TBH, I hope we'll end up with a resolution on the Article Talk page though. --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that opinion is very divided on what to rename the article. The ongoing poll shows two main options which both have a large number of supporters but also large opposition too. There has been talk of the vote being open another week, but even once the vote is decided there are weeks of the dispute ahead before any consensus is going to be found.

One important thing to note is that none of the options (even further suggestions made after the 5 options were listed) have included keeping the article where it is now. The article in question has been evolving over years, starting out as about the UK then just being about Britain but as pointed out in the edit summary many months ago it included information about Ireland so it was changed to "British Isles". That change 7+ months ago was not undone once until 2 weeks ago when this all started. Unlike what happened when it was renamed British Islands (undone several times and resulted in it being put up for deletion).

The article really needs to be moved from its current title. We have already seen attempts by some editors to remove content so that it fits the current title which nobody wants. Please could you take a look at this situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I try to leave polls like this open for a full seven days before closing them. It'll hit that limit at 17:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC), which is in another day and a half. That's a Sunday, though, so I'll probably go back and evaluate the discussion on Monday. That'll let more weekend editors take part, if they care.--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)