Talk:Nest usurpation

Requested move 03 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close, despite votes here. I'll submit request soon. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Draft:Usurpation → Usurpation – moving over redirect – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Draft:Usurpation → Usurpation (move (@subpage)) – moving over redirect – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Glancing at GBooks/GScholar it appears most uses of "usurpation" refer to feudal monarchy. Perhaps Usurpation (insect behaviour) (or something) would be better? I'll let another admin make the call. Jenks24 (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Jenks24: Right, usurpation is the subject we cover, for now, at usurper. The subject of the person who usurps (a usurper) is a big subject -- many people are called usurpers both descriptively and as "X the Usurper", usurpers are a stock literary character, etc. The process of usurping, however, is not specific in that it really just means a controversial deposition by one or more usurpers. It should really just be covered in those two articles (usurper and deposition). On the other hand, the insect phenomenon rarely makes use of the term "usurper", and when studied is known as "usurpation". So as usurpation is the primary term for that notable phenomenon, and as there are several possible pages for the human/political sense (which I would argue are better homes for the subject), it seemed uncontroversial. The bigger question to me is whether it would be better to just move usurper (disambiguation) to usurper (the latter is an unsourced dicdef at the moment) and add a link to deposition (politics) to the disambiguation page (but that's outside the scope of this request). Anyway, despite this relatively long response, I do think it's non-controversial as we don't have a primary subject for usurpation written. If such a time comes that someone does choose to write an article about the political sense of usurpation that doesn't just belong in deposition, we can always move the insect to a parenthetical. Until then, however, I don't think we need all versions of that word tied to the same meaning when we could just use a hatnote from the insect page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites and Jenks24:

• Oppose the political concept is the primary topic. This should carry a disambiguator -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yes, the human topic is more familiar. The insects involved are bees and wasps (Hymenoptera), and the behaviour is often called Nest usurpation, which is an available name. I'd suggest we have a hat note at feudal/monarchical usurpation "For the behaviour in insects, see Nest usurpation". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Second Chiswick Chap's motion to add a hatnote to the main article. As an entomologist, I can confirm that "nest usurpation" is the more common term, and would be a less ambiguous article title, though "usurpation (insect)" would also be fine. M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Nest usurpation works for me. I just didn't think it made sense to have a parenthetical when we don't actually have an article about the political topic (see above). Anyone opposed to closing this early? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What happened?

@George Ho: When I see an AfC notice on my talk page, I know something's amiss. "Procedural close, despite votes here. I'll submit request soon" is a completely meaningless close that omits justification and outcome. What are you doing? Why did you submit it to AfC? Based on the thread above, I'm just moving it to nest usurpation. This was never an AfC or a proposed article. I mistakenly thought a move to Usurpation would be uncontroversial, so it moved from requested moves to here to figure out the right target. And we did. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why people even use RMs lately to have Draft namespaces moved to main ones. Even when it's not an AfC, I have to submit it. When is using RM an okay alternative process? --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Because the target has a redirect in the way that would need to be deleted to move it. It's not an "alternative" to AfC. Why on earth would you "have to submit it"? You've still omitted the justification/rationale. Why did you feel you had to shut down one process and start another, with completely counter-productive results? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask the person who reviewed the submission instead. Apparently, you appeared rhetorical; if not, I don't think I need to answer that. If you are against my closure, take it to MRV. George Ho (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: MRV and the AfC reviewer aren't relevant. You closed a discussion with a nonsensical rationale, have refused requests to explain (except via this bizarre RM as an alternative to AfC thing), and submitted an article to AfC for unknown reasons. I have no idea what it means to "appear rhetorical" but if you cannot close appropriately and cannot justify/explain the close when asked about it, you shouldn't be closing discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are very desperate, care to allow me to change my rationale then? Apparently, "nest usurpation" seems to be an alternative. Should have been "Draft:nest usurpation" and then submit it for review, but this is fine for now based on your credentials. I apologize; I assumed you were one of those unaware of "submit" templates. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"The result of the move request was: Procedural close, despite votes here. I'll submit request soon" - this is meaningless. Wanting a close to make sense is not desperation. No, it should not have been moved and then submitted for review; it should've been moved to where it is now. Nobody even suggested moving it within the draft space, and not every draft has to go through AfC.

But I've communicated my grievance and there's no action to be taken, so I'll go ahead and drop it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Information added

Hi! I am a student at Memorial University. I am editing this paper for a project in course called animal behaviour I. I added information about foundresses and usurpers. --Leah Curnew (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leah Curnew: Thanks for adding to the page. As you can see, it needs a lot of work! The reference you've added looks like a pretty good one, but you'll want to check the url. The one you've added goes through your university proxy, which makes the link broken for anyone outside of the school. From the article or database page, look for a "permalink" or a direct like to the Springer page. It may also jsut require looking at the url, seeing some "proxy" part in the front and then another full url at the end -- the full url is what you want (test it first though, you may have to change "%2f" to "/" for example). Another useful bit of information to include in the citation is the digital object identifier (DOI), which you can almost always find somewhere on the page (here it's 10.1007/BF02350216). Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)