Colonel William A. Phillips

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3 (Thailand) → National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) — Real name. Also please lock from moving, Paul 012 always reverting to false info 125.25.34.117 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to support your move proposal. Thank you. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 05:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping to get further input from you; if you can provide proper sources for your claims, they should be added to the article. The semi-protection doesn't affect that. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 06:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Extra disambiguator was not found to be needed. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3 (Thailand) → Channel 3 (Thai TV channel) – The title format for these pages have changed from using (Country) as the disambiguator to (Nation adjective TV channel) and it's probably time for it to join up CreecregofLife (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife and Dekimasu, I didn't follow the NCBC discussion, but for subjects whose names already include the word channel, this seems redundant and doesn't offer benefit over the more succinct Channel 3 (Thailand), as no non-TV channels with these names exist in Thailand. I'm leaning toward opposing this move, as well as those for Channel 5 (Thailand), Channel 7 (Thailand), and Channel 8 (Thailand). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio channels exist. That’s why (Thai TV channel) CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no radio channels exist by these names in Thailand. Disambiguation is necessary only so far as to precisely identify the Wikipedia article about the subject. Disambiguating words and phrases are not supposed to identify the nature of subject—that's what the short description does. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reader doesn’t know that CreecregofLife (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for the reader to know that, and I just said above that that is irrelevant to the choice of disambiguator in the article title anyway. Please take a look at WP:Article titles#Disambiguation. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing against policy. Your entire argument is based on how it seems to you and not how it actually is. Your link is entirely unhelpful and does not support your case CreecregofLife (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:Article titles#Disambiguation. It is policy and entirely backs up Paul_012's argument: According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Thai TV channel is. Again, policy backs me up. Not Paul's CreecregofLife (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The policy clearly states as much detail as necessary. Paul argues adding TV channel is unnecessary detail. Hence their argument is backed up by policy. Yours is not, so you need to argue a convincing case for adding the extra detail. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Yours is not” Based on what? Your argument is entirely opinion-based, not policy based. For what reason is his argument backed up by policy? There is none provided. Everything I have said is 100% inarguably true. You couldn’t even prove his statements were backed up by policy, and you’re forcing me to do all the work, a burden I have already fulfilled CreecregofLife (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained, several times. The burden is indeed on you if you want to increase the detail of disambiguation to convince others that there is sufficient cause to do so per the policy WP:Article titles#Disambiguation that Paul_012 cited. Of course no one is forcing you to do anything and you may feel you have already said enough to convince others, which is fine. Polyamorph (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Channel was moved to include American TV channel in 2019. The detail will be increased because policy supports it and there hasn’t been sufficient argument against it. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you referring to? Polyamorph (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions (broadcasting CreecregofLife (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline, not policy. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So then why aren’t we following the guideline? Because right now, you are refusing to acknowledge that both the policy and the guideline are in my favor, making an impossible threshold to convince youCreecregofLife (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need convincing. I have made no argument either way for the move. The fact that WP:Article titles#Disambiguation is policy and requires titles to be concise without unnecessary disambiguation is the only point I have made in this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proven the disambiguation unnecessary CreecregofLife (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have argued here that the disambiguation is not necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they clearly haven’t CreecregofLife (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move The way I wrote my proposal would support Paul_012's interpretation.

Where it can be reasonably expected that all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type...

A reader can reasonably expect that almost all of the articles with the same base name of "Channel 3" relate to television. The disambiguation page Channel 3 lists one entry titled Channel 3 that is unrelated to television, the band Channel 3 (band). The reason that section was written as it was was to prevent unnecessarily long page names in exactly this case.

I will note that there was some discussion on this in the NCBC RfC in that one user, Gonnym, specifically opposed the prioritization of WP:CONCISE over WP:CONSISTENT—both sections of the policy page Wikipedia:Article titles—on this issue and shared the perspective held in this discussion by CreecregofLife. The adopted text supports the page title of Channel 3 (Thailand) over Channel 3 (Thai TV channel). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What adopted text? How is (Thai TV channel) too long? This opposition is making less sense by the minute CreecregofLife (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By adopted text, I'm referring to the RfC text: User:Sammi Brie/NCBC (which I need to actually, you know, put in project space). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (or network if this is a network as the article says it is). Thanks Sammi for the ping. A stand-alone "country" qualifier is meaningless. "Channel x" while it sounds like a TV channel, it can also be a station (Channel 3 (Cambodia)) or a network ((Channel One (Albania)). Having the qualifier makes these very clear at a glance. This also helps fix the long-standing issue with TV stations / channels / networks where editors have made a huge mess of, while removing the qualifier just makes it worse. I'll also note that a guideline should never be accepted with minimal support. These types of things should never be "who has more votes?", but also "does it have a minimal quorum?", which 6 is not it (and 4/6 is really not enough support). As such I do not believe this guideline (or section of the guideline) has actually community support. Also, just to be clear, as always I think Sammi Brie is doing an incredible job in this area, but this is one part we don't agree upon. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say this on the channel/station/network issue. This process made me really attentive to that wording. People are all over the place in the world at large. It's no small wonder we've been, too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I’ve been making the moves, I have been taking note of specific channel/network wording, though that’s mostly to spot the country’s adjective (like Argentine over Argentinian, I was perplexed but still had some semblance of understanding) CreecregofLife (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unnecessary disambiguation. If there is no channel 3 radio station in Thailand, the "TV channel" bit is superfluous and contrary to WP:CONCISE. Number 57 10:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per policy WP:Article titles#Disambiguation, there is no need for further disambiguation. Polyamorph (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the policy doesn’t say that further disambiguation is unnecessary. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It says do not use more precision than what's necessary. You are getting into the realms of bludgeoning this discussion and definitely WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Best wishes. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe if you’d listen the first time when I say something I wouldn’t have to keep repeating it CreecregofLife (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:NOTGETTINGIT: The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.. Polyamorph (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not represent the entire community. You are NOTGETTINGIT CreecregofLife (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but I am part of the community, together with Number 57, Paul_012, Sammi Brie, Dekimasu, who disagree with you with policy backed arguments, and Gonnym supportive of the move. Good luck with the remainder of this RM. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Putting my position in bold, per my above comment. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on premature move closure

In light of the objection, I had reverted my close and was about to suggest reverting the other three moves, withdrawing this, and starting a multimove request. However, the reversion of the close itself was not an indication that the move could not go through. I had written: There appears to be a rock paper scissors problem here. The "first" disambiguator is (TV channel), but since that remains ambiguous, the country is added as a "second" disambiguator. However, this will be considered overspecific when these are treated as three disambiguators (Thai+TV+channel) rather than two (Thai+"TV channel") or if aiming for concision.

Next, this yielded an edit conflict because my self-reversion was reverted by CreecregofLife and the move was reinstated. The move is clearly not uncontroversial, since someone has objected to it. The original error was mine in interpreting the move as uncontroversial, and I apologize for short-circuiting the original discussion. However, I have never had one of my closes "reinstated" by an involved party after I reopened the discussion, and I am not able to negotiate the reversion of my reopening now. I strongly suggest that CreecregofLife undo the "reclosing" and I will leave a note at WT:RM just in case. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregoLife, you wrote in your edit summary, "Contesting the move doesn’t mean the page moves back. It’s still an uncontroversial move." I thought "it seemed unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move," but since that is not the case, WP:RMUM and WP:RMCM apply. This is a recent move, which I self-reverted to the status quo, and it should not be reinstated on the basis of my self-reverted close. There is no reason this can't be given the normal week of discussion for possibly controversial moves. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't an error. There was no reason to assume that it would be controversial. The move is 100% correct CreecregofLife (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move and reinstated the RM discussion as it is a controversial undiscussed page move. Let the discussion take its course and an admin will close once consensus is clear Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed. The move was proposed and agreed to. That is discussion. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed only very briefly and contested during that discussion. There was no consensus to move and the admin that initially did so reverted their own actions after realising they'd made a mistake, which is perfectly fine. Requested move discussions typically remain open for at least 7 days. You must wait for an admin to close the discussion and gauge consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t contested during the discussion, it was contested after. This is why the discussion shouldn’t have reopened because now all the closure info isn’t at hand when discussing the procession. CreecregofLife (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is it was moved prior to any discussion. Hence it was an undiscussed move that was contested. Therefore reverting the move back to the status quo and waiting for the discussion to conclude is the correct course of action here. Polyamorph (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]