Talk:Rupert Murdoch

Rename
isn't this quite transparently a reference to Rupert Murdoch? I forget how our policies work; would it be permissible to name this page his full name, even with a "conjecture" tag, or does that info have to go into the "behind the scenes" section? NightmareofEden ☎  01:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Who is Rupert Murdoch? If this is intended to be a reference to him, there's ample precedent to move this page to Rupert Murdoch (A letter from the Master) with a template.  📯 📂 01:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "who is Rupert Murdoch"? NightmareofEden ☎  01:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Call me sheltered, but I had no idea who Rupert Murdoch is until you brought him up. Yeah, it does seem to be a reference to him, so I'll add a rename tag now. 📯 📂 01:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the tag is to be used for noncontroversial renames. If a discussion is required, as it obviously is here, then the standard is used. Please read the instructions at Template:Speedy rename for what this wiki defines as "noncontroversial" thanks Shambala108 ☎  02:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Uh, with all due respect, this is a non-controversial change, with plenty of precedent. The only reason @NightmareofEden brought it up on the talk page is because they were asking why this page wasn't at Rupert Murdoch, and the only reason it isn't was a blunder on my part as I didn't know that Rupert was meant to be a real person.


 * Don't be condescending, I know how the templates work. I've used them dozens of times. Perhaps instead you could enact the change proposed as opposed to pointing out tiny little details on how users went wrong? It'd be more productive, and you'd save time, which is especially good as you have mentioned that we're all volunteers here. 📯 📂 04:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Epsilon the Eternal you need to let the admins decide when a move is noncontroversial or otherwise. This isn't merely an issue of a typo, because User:NightmareofEden suggested the need for a conjecture tag. Shambala108 ☎  04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have to second this. is for when no discussion needs to be had. This would be a judgment call, not a straightforward application of policy (fixing a typo, applying T:HONOUR, switching to full name when it comes from a new valid source). Please use  instead. 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Shambala108, I'm sorry, but where does it say that admins have the sole authority to determine if something is controversial or not?


 * To counter your point about, despite @NighmareofEden's suggestion, a template is obligatory in this situation.  You can suggest all sorts of things, but that hardly makes a difference when policy and precedent is already in accordance with the suggestion.


 * There is no discussion to be had, pages are named conjecturally on dozens of instances, this is just how it is done of this Wiki, despite it not being explicitly written down on a policy page. But let's not forget that I have been told that this is ad hoc policy, if something is standard practise on the Wiki. 📯 📂 19:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, controversial doesn't mean contentious. A rename suggestion can be in line with policy, but if it is not obvious and inarguable, it is up for discussion, by definition. Anything requiring further research, or where there is more than one possible interpretation of policy, requires the template.


 * In this case, the necessity of tells us we're in a grey zone here. Policy allows some wiggle room around real world creep for page titles, and it's an ongoing conversation where to draw the line, involving many precedents. But don't let that stop you from starting a discussion, like here, and pushing things forward to a quick resolution.


 * So to move forward with the actual rename suggestion, are there any objections to Rupert Murdoch? 20:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)