 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
There are arguments you should avoid in Requested Move discussions. Having closed a great number of Requested Move discussions over the years as well as participating in spirited debates around Wikipedia Title Policy and the Wikipedia Move Review Process the one truth is that where a topic has reasonable alternate titles to choose from, or where there exist other topics that could reasonably share the same title or be confused with it, then there can be no PERFECT article title. When such concerns are balanced against Title Policy, Naming Conventions, and our Disambiguation and Manual of Style Guidelines, the perfect title is a rare thing.
The other unfortunate truth is that a Wikipedia article can have but one title, no matter how imperfect, and Wikipedia can have only one article with a given title, no matter how many notable John Does there may be in this world. For this, and a great many more reasons, editors routinely move articles unilaterally to new titles or, when such a move might be controversial, initiate Requested Move discussions. I estimate that 10-15 requested move discussions are initiated every day. Most are fairly benign and easy to decide based on consensus and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, there are always a few every month that turn out contentious and are a challenge to resolve. And generally, when they are a challenge to resolve, someone—the requester, an opposer or supporter—is likely to be dissatisfied with the closer's decision.
No matter who participates in Requested Move discussions--experienced editors savvy about title, disambiguation and style guidelines or editors passionate about a specific article – I firmly believe they are sincere in their positions supporting or opposing requested moves. Such sincerity goes only so far and there are, in my view, arguments that all editors should avoid in Requested Move discussions. Some arguments contribute little to the discussion and do not have any bearing on the title decision. Others merely complicate the closing decision and in my experience, a complicated titling decision is more than likely to favor the "status quo".
Our titling policy and all related guidelines exist for one purpose: crafting the most appropriate titles for our encyclopedia's articles. With 5,000,000 + articles some won't be perfect and there's lots of maneuvering room. RMs play a key role in the overall process. RMs are not, in any sense of the word, competitions; and arguments that appear competitive should be avoided. Avoiding these kinds of arguments will go a long way toward making the process work better.