Joker (character) – Relisted. This has become a complete mess, because a spate of users have come in and are casting !votes on the merits of the aborted RM itself, rather than the move closure. As such, I think it's best to call a halt to this MRV now. And although it's fairly clear from the sorts of comments we're getting that it's very unlikely to be successful, User:Paine Ellsworth's point is still valid - this is not the same RM as the one above it, and it does attempt to address the objection that most users were making in the previous RM, so the rationale given in the snow close was incorrect, and if the nominator requests it to run for the full seven days then that is not unreasonable. I am in no way endorsing or supporting the move, but just letting it run its course so we can put the debate to bed. Once this one expires then it may be time for a moratorium as suggested by User:SmokeyJoe below. The closing admin can assess that at the time. I will ping everyone who commented on this move review, to notify them that the RM is relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was closed by a non-admin claiming it is repeat of a prior move discussion "with the exact same rationale". It is not. Several of the opposes from the prior move discussion objected only because "Joker (DC Comics)" makes it unclear whether this article is about a character or a publication. Due to this, I created a new move discussion to "Joker (DC Comics character)" which addresses that concern and also prevents the WP:INCDAB of the current "Joker (character)" due to many other characters that are covered on Wikipedia with that name. This should be reopened and allowed to proceed. Per recommendation of one of the participants, once its re-opened we can ping all prior voters in the previous move discussions to see if this version can gain consensus. --Netoholic@ 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not the same move request as before, and it didn't come close to satisfying WP:SNOW. Since it ran for less than two days, it should be re-opened and allowed to run the usual course of minimum seven days. Nom gets a trout for not first discussing this on the closer's talk page. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 22:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Paine Ellsworth:} - I'll be honest I could have contacted him, but I view his close of this one as a conflict of interest due to his RM at Talk:Venom (comics)#Requested move 19 April 2018, where he proposed a move to "Name (character)". In that one, I proposed the same disambig method "Name (publisher character)". I think he closed this one to prevent discussion of these alternatives and to impact that Venom discussion. -- Netoholic@ 22:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moratorium, 6 months before the next permissible RM proposal. There are a series of RMs in rapid succession, collectively SNOW opposing a change in title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The difference between nominations is completely trivial. It's "Joker (more specific type of character, instead of just character)" both times. It was completely opposed the first time, it was equally opposed the second, and there's even a user there complaining about all this. It sounds as an attempt to game the system; but if you want to reopen the discussion and let it run its course, go ahead: it does not have a snowball's chance in hell to pass anyway. As for Venom, that discussion was opened on April 19, and this one on April 25. By suggesting that this discussion may have an impact on the other, he may be also suggesting that he opened this discussion for WP:POINTCambalachero (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making any changes to any part which impacts this discussion, just removing guidance superceded by more recent developments. --Netoholic@ 16:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was the third move proposal in a row at Talk:Joker (character) and, if you read the previous two, it's no wonder it was closed. I think it's fairly clear from those that the consensus is to keep the article where it is. But, if we are going to keep opening subsequent proposals, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to re-post my previous, relevant posts and for everyone involved in the previous proposals to be tagged.
Oppose: For the reasons stated by other users and myself in the firsttwoproposals (which are very much still applicable). And even if there were articles on the other characters named "Joker", those are minor characters who are nowhere near as pertinent as this character (hence why they don't have articles to begin with). This would still be the primary topic, as anyone searching for Joker (character) is almost definitely looking for the Batman villain. Articles such as Joker in other media and The Joker (The Dark Knight) are sub-articles of Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 21:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my previous arguments against moving, and can we just move on and stop beating a dead horse? This is clearly the primary topic for "Joker (character)", as evidenced from the consensus of the (far too many) many discussions we've had on this. JOEBRO64 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It took years of discussions to get from "Joker (comics)" to "Joker (character)" and it is the primary topic. No other character called Joker has an article because they are not remotely notable or confused with the central character of comic books, video games, movies and tv. The repeated opening of discussions to pursue a singular agenda is unfair and more importantly time consuming, as editors are having to use their limited time here having the same conversations instead of improving articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is tedious. There have been two consensuses in the past month to keep "Joker (character)" as the title. If you wanted to propose something else, you had several weeks in which to do it. This Joker is unquestionably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for characters named "Joker". --IagoQnsi (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—this has gotten obnoxious. Netoholic desperately wants a move of some kind, but the consensus is that one is not needed—not that the individual proposals are inadequate, but that a move is not needed at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also. There is no other widely known character called the Joker. Yes, there's a playing-card symbol, the Joker, but that's not a character any more than the kings, queens and jacks are characters. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Discussion thus far includes two participants total with both !votes unanimous; opened 7 Apr, it needs period extension or closing. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Portal:Civil Rights Movement – Close endorsed. There is clear consensus here that the close was a correct reading of the consensus and within the closer's remit. Cúchullaint/c 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I can see no clear consensus for the name change of the portal (even taking off my biased glasses), which was discussed at length in the same manner as the WikiProject by the opposers of the RM ... making the decision of keeping a no consensus close for only 'half?' of the entire discussion while stating that one particular half somehow was actually able to establish consensus (even though the strength of the opposing arguments did not somehow change simply by cherry picking the discussion's parts... there was no survey asking editors about each specific page, only both. So to separate them to me seems quite strange, especially considering that this was a non-admin closure, something I would rarely recommend for anything bordering this close to a complete lack of actual consensus. Please do review this close, to think I created a portal out of thin air and to have it simply overrun by editors who have yet to actually add to it at all just for a name change seems rather ridiculous and a complete waste of my time and energy... which I'd much rather be devoting to the Civil Rights Movement WikiProject (which I also just recently established) instead of stressing about capitalization fights across a ridiculous spectrum of articles, categories and pages. As an administrator, I simply would never have made such a close with so little consensus (if one can see any at all). I hope this can be resolved swiftly. Many thanks. Note: The closer was approached on their talkpage by several editors about the errors of the close, but they have so far refused to change their decision.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse was looking over it earlier, would've closed the same way; basically, no one has actually given a reason for the portal to be capitalized differently from the article; all I can see them arguing is that technically the TITLE policy doesn't say it applies, which is a nice technicality but isn't actually a reason against the move, WP:NOTVOTE. It seems more an attempt to redebate the decision on the article, from those who oppose the decapitalization of the article (with atleast one oppose being specifically saying to overturn and make the article capitalized, but not offering an argument for portal to be capitalized differently); if the article is changed to be capitalized only then the portal should be.
Wikiprojects often seem to follow Camel Case, and the discussion was a little more mixed on that. Discussions are not limited to the initial conditions in an RM. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter and Paine Ellsworth: I have G7'd the portal, please feel free to build it all back yourself. WP:POINTy? Maybe. But, you all need to start realizing this is a site built by volunteers. Continue to act like the editors who actually put in the work towards establishing content are worthless and trying to game the system somehow (even though it was Dick who started the RM, not myself nor any other opposer to the article's RM), and see just how far that gets you at editor retention here. Good day. I've got more important things to do with my time than argue about how my work actually is my work unless someone else actually contributes more to it than showing just how fast they can huff and puff and blow my whole house down (oh, but I forgot... they're the only people not using nice technicalities). I'm certainly done wasting my time here arguing with metaphorical walls. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. When the initial closing is compared with the final closing, this MR's above remark, The closer was approached on their talkpage by several editors about the errors of the close, but they have so far refused to change their decision, is unsupported. With all due respect to the nom, it does appear that their taking off their "unbiased glasses" did not take place, after all. What is sad is not that editors would go to great lengths to see that the guideline (community consensus) is followed even for portals, the sad part is that a few editors seem to apply WP:IAR without the least of good reasons to do so. Some even try to fight for an IDONTLIKEIT outcome to the point of badgering, which accounts for a good deal of that RM debate's content. At risk of sounding patronizing, I would thank the nom for their efforts in the creation of this Portal and WikiProject, plus all their contributions; however, a gentle reminder is needed that their creations are not "their babies" but Wikipedia's babies, and they must conform to this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 16:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that I do not "own" nor "parent" the portal, nor indeed any content I volunteer to contribute to this site. But, that does not inherently or otherwise make the arguments for changing the capitalization any stronger. Nor does it invalidate the very sound arguments made by Mitchumch at the closer's talk page (when he did indeed attempt to convince the user to change their close, to which they refused... much like I literally stated, even though you claim it simply isn't so (without providing any evidence besides your word). Apologizing for being deliberately patronizing is worthless to me; I've been at this site since 2007, and an administrator since 2008. I don't need a refresher from you or anyone else on how WP:OWNERSHIP/WP:COPYRIGHT/WP:TOU works, and I most certainly don't appreciate that tone after being the one who did actually put in all of the work for this portal. However, seeing as no one else had/has actually contributed to the portal's contents in pretty much any actual way whatsoever, I would say that means I still have the ability to request a G7 speedy deletion at any point until any of the people who have been so caught up in the capitalization of my work actually add to it in a meaningful way... so yes I don't own the site nor even my own contributions once they have been released under GNU/CC-by-SA, but I sure as hell do have the ability to take all of my work down if you all find this so incredibly necessary per WP:SPEEDY. Simply changing the name of the portal is not enough to make it not qualify for immediate speedy deletion at my request, so if you would rather rebuild the entire thing yourself, please feel free to do so after you make sure it is no longer my "baby". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely concur with I've been at this site since 2007, and an administrator since 2008.But given your colorful on-wiki-records, I guess I don't need a refresher from you is a bit.....~ Winged BladesGodric 04:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, we did conform to this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. We followed Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. The issue was we did not follow implied guidelines. Using implied policy rather than explicit policy will predictably lead to disagreement among editors.
I queried the closer, "From the supporters standpoint, you endorsed their arguments that a site wide policy exists that governs the naming conventions of all Portals. Is this your contention?"The closers response was, "Absolutely not.That's misplacing words in my mouth esp. in light of my statement the practise of the guidelines are unclear, as to whether they apply to project-space which is visible at the RM closure."
I thought you and Dicklyon presented a reasonable argument. I simply observed the language of the policy both of you presented was silent on the matter. I would not have had a problem with suspending the discussion until a community consensus was formulated on the policy pages.
Despite my repeated suggestion to have that conversation on the mentioned policy pages, none of the supporters for the move did so during a two-three week discussion. Just for the sake of community consensus, it would have been better to address the issue on those policy pages then proceed to align the affected pages accordingly. Mitchumch (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Portal decision, per all of the good cites and reasoning within the discussion offered and well-debated by Mitchumch. I'm not that much of a lawyer that I can remember most of his work in the discussion, but as I initially read it as the edits were made I remember being continually impressed by his skill. I ask everyone commenting to consider reading the entire discussion with an open-but-skeptical point of view. To my reading of it, Mitchumch does present a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as closer)--
Despite the nom, who was so decent and courteous to indulge in semi-trolling at my t/p, yet to not mention the MRV, he had initiated, (Post-reply-addition:--(he thought and still thinks that it isn't mandated by policy)) I'm glad that I found this out.
Anyways, whilst I erred as to the case of Wikiproject initially, (it was one of the most convoluted discussions with sky-high levels of badgering), I will thank Randy Kryn for pointing my error out.
As to portals, I stand by my close, that there was not a single rational argument from the side of opposers, barring wiki-lawyering stuff and IDONTLIKEIT arguments.
Galobtter has surmised it nicely, when he states:--Basically, no one has actually given a reason for the portal to be capitalized differently from the article; all I can see them arguing is that technically the TITLE policy doesn't say it applies, which is a nice technicality but isn't actually a reason against the move.Added later.~ Winged BladesGodric 07:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the sake of it, Coffee's own argument is the most blatant example of an entirely dis-countable !vote.
And, frankly, I'm amazed by the levels of ownership displayed by the nom, in the crusade to fight off a move, which has veered to pointy CSD taggings.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about "ownership" would hold any weight had you or literally anyone else made a single edit to the portal prior to me requesting its deletion. Otherwise, it's no more than a cute buzzword that you don't seem to actually understand. This site is built by a volunteer mindset, something I usually find easy to have when my work isn't being belittled by editors like yourself. But, if you don't appreciate my assistance in creating portals or any of the multiple civil rights articles I've written and gotten to GA, and simply look as them as "part of the machine's work" then you need a very long refresher about our pillars. Simply put, you have acted incredibly rudely here while accusing me of ownership, yet fully willing to practically edit war to keep your close having any power at all. Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just briefly, it is often difficult to tell the diff between ownership and stewardship, difficult both for onlookers and also sometimes for the steward him-or-herself. It seems prudent then to mention two things: 1) the creator of the new portal and new project page has been around more than long enough to know the difference and so should be given the benefit of the doubt, and 2) since this long-standing editor (and admin) has worked so closely with similar articles even taking them to GA status, I think they might just be a little too close to the subject matter to be able to see the errors, if any, in their various rationales, response posts and MRV entry. It's not easy to back off from a subjective passion enough to be objective about it. Hopefully, editors will see the good that is at least intended in these words. And I sincerely apologize for any bad judgments any editor may think I've made, whether or not they've been perceived to be rash or flamey. Best of Everything to All!Paine Ellsworthput'r there 02:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I've no idea, as to how the merits of my closure is going to be evaluated, because apparently, the initiator of this MRV has self-evaluated it to be so worse, that he has G7-ed the talk-page, thus turning the RM link into a red one.~ Winged BladesGodric 05:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas, as to viewing the RM, will be sincerely appreciated:)~ Winged BladesGodric 05:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee:, Any ideas?! Or I guess this MRV ought to be closed with a nominator-ial endorsement of my closure.....Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 06:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The history of discussions is clear: civil rights movement is not a proper name and there's no consensus for broad classes of exceptions to MOS:CAPS for things that appear in articles, such as the titles of portals. There was a clear consensus to that effect in the RM discussion; and no consensus on the Wikiproject, since its title does not appear in articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note – now that the G7 delete has been undone, it might be good to again advise RM participants of this MRV. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - my assessment based on the discussion and precedent is that the capitalization of the portal should match the article; a main oppose argument was based on the claim that Civil rights movement should be moved back to Civil Rights Movement. There's no consensus regarding the capitalization for the WikiProject; many other WikiProjects use title case and the (long and rambling) discussion has no consensus either. As that is the exact result Godric found, I endorse it, though I can't endorse his post-close comments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I do agree that the post close saga was unfortunate and I won't hold my behavior to be exemplary either but it's a difficult task for me, to not lose patience at sky-high levels of fuckwittery and pointy actions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (I initiated the RM). As I pointed out in the discussion, the oppose votes didn't really seem to have very good reasons attached to them, other than (a) rehashing the article debate, (b) suggesting that naming conventions don't apply to portals, (c) applying WP:OWN arguments to say that only certain individuals may decide the portal name, and (d) dismissing the RM as frivolous. None of which seemed to me to be valid reasons for not moving this. In particular, they did not answer my query as to why the article and the portal should be named differently. As such, I think the closer's assessment was correct. — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (reopen). Patently, not an uncontroversial close. NAC-ers should not close controversial discussions, most definitively not when they anticipate it going to MRV. Coffee would have been within his rights to immediate revert the close, even as involved, any admin at any time may revert an NAC close for any reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that given the extreme circumstances around this sysop, you're not baiting him.....~ Winged BladesGodric 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Winged Blades of Godric, I only just now noticed your post, I have not read it before. I came to this MRV nomination unaware of any issues, and only noticed the "issues" in passing. There was absolutely no attempt to bait. I quite like User:Coffee, have done for many years, and am sad to see him retire over this. I don't understand the strength of feeling on the matter, the bottom of the problem doesn't seem to be readily apparent. It's like something personal has gone on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMNAC:the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure.Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, any reason but that. “Contested” is a sufficient reason for overturning an NAClose. NACs should be uncontroversial, they should never appear at MRV. Their regular appearance is plain evidence that NAC-ers routinely overstep. This case, where the NAC-er anticipates MRV is extreme. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their regular appearance is plain evidence that NAC-ers routinely overstep.--That's the most nonsensical of all arguments.So, if every fly-by-unhappy-discussant chooses to bring RMs that have been properly closed, to MRV, I guess you will be soon proposing that NACs be banned altogether!~ Winged BladesGodric 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, the amount of bludgeoning in a discussion is almost always proportional to the chances of a MRV/DRV.Add to that, the previous move-warring, which led to Sarah protecting it.All points to a single direction and I was evidently correct......~ Winged BladesGodric 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, non-admins obviously may do NACs, but they are supposed to follow the advice at WP:NAC and not close controversial discussions. I just noticed your reply “I guess that given the extreme circumstances around this sysop, you're not baiting him.....”. I’m afraid I do not follow that comment. I am not up to speed with wider issues related to User:Coffee, I merely reviewed the RM and it’s close at face value, and my comments are a little influenced by past MRV discussions, but that’s all. I am well aware of Dicklyon’s penchant for capitalisation, but I have consciously ignored those details. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: please argue the close, not the closer. The closer being a non-admin has never been a valid reason on its own to overturn any decision at MRV, as Galobtter points out from the WP:RMNAC instructions above. If you think the close was wrong, say why. Otherwise, if you can't see any reason why the close is wrong, other than that the closer was a non-admin, then your argument here is not really valid. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, “The closer being a non-admin has never been a valid reason on its own to overturn any decision at MRV”? Rubbish. It has never been a sufficient reason, but it has always been the case the NACs are only for clear cut cases. Look at the precise wording. Things have sort of changed since the page mover right was implemented, and page movers began making dodgy closes. This close was a bit dodgy. The closing statement a bit creative. A little bit of supervote. But the lowest root cause was that it was a clumsy close by an unqualified non-admin for a contentious case. The complainant has some points. And further underlying is the reason for why contentious closes are reserved for admins. The baptism of fire does give credibility, and accountability, and responsibility, things NACers don’t carry. Contentious closes of contentious discussions involved considerable judgement, and discretion, and post close the decision must have respect, and a large part of that comes from the status of the closer. On this occasion, the NACer actually alluding to an anticipated MRV, that’s gauling. There is excellent advice at WP:NAC that should be heeded. If I am wrong about this, then a single admin will step up an say they would have closed the discussion the same way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve read the whole discussion again, and I am sure, that was not a consensus. The proposal was contested, no one convinced anyone, and the facts only became messier with further discussion. At a stretch, there was rough consensus, but I sure wouldn’t have declared it, I am not sure it was within admin discretion, and it sure wasn’t for a non-Admin to declare. It was such a rough call, and precedent setting, that the close should have been far more cautious. I think no uninvolved admin would have made that close, and no non-admin should have come close to making that close. In the end, Dicklyon is usually right, but the discussion does not show that community agrees at the point of the close. Consensus is not majorityism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) amended underlined 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....I don't boast of high technical capabilities but can design a bot that will parse the cardinality of the set of support or oppose votes( not !votes)/comments and close discussions accordingly.Can try that, at spare time:)~ Winged BladesGodric 14:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? what? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Maybe it was the unfortunate missing “not” in the last sentence? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Your addition has changed the meaning of the sentence at it's entirety, rendering my reply irrelevant.At any case, I fail to see the justification for your last comment, given that you're opposing my closure.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 04:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I apologise for the typing error. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I have now just read the talk page for the first time, and it reinforces my earlier conclusion: the close lacks credence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say it was a messy discussion, but really it wasn't. The facts were very simple. We have an article, Civil rights movement, which was recently moved to a lowercase title, and the casing was an explicit and discussed aspect of that move. We also have a portal, Portal:Civil Rights Movement, which is a page concerning the *exact same topic*. And, as I explained above in my own endorse vote, there were two main points given in opposition to the move - (1) that naming conventions don't apply to portals, and (2) rearguing of the original debate from the article talk page, from those who opposed the lower casing there. (2) is obviously not valid, and as for (1), while it is not explicitly written anywhere that WP:AT applies to portals, precedent says it does. After New York (state) was moved, the portal was moved immediately with no further RM. Anyway, like I say, the argument that the closer was a non-admin is irrelevant; because whether you like it or not, WP:RMNAC is explicit that the status of the closer not in itself a valid reason to overturn the close. So like I say, if you think the close should be reversed, please give explicit reasons why. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, you are heavily involved, and are getting into rearguing the facts. Stop badgering. It was a BADNAC. The closing was quite unseemly. It probably should have been closed as “no consensus”, or better left for more input by others. The closer supervoted. The NAC should be reversed, it was not appropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in this debate, I would have closed it in the same manner as it was closed by another. Yet I have to admit that is probably why involved editors must refrain from closing debates. The closer was uninvolved, and while that editor is a non-admin, and while experience is a factor, none of that really matters. What matters is that the close is within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To endorse the close is also within those policies and guidelines, and anything else is not. It really boils down to, "Are we with or against community consensus," and if we are against, then we should clearly, succinctly give the very good reason(s) why we are against. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because sometimes line-call decisions have to be made, and those decisions should be left to admins. The ability to call a consensus from a difficult discussion is an important thing tested at RfA, and people who want that privilege should submit themselves to RfA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to disagree; however, you haven't given a good reason why we as editors should not dispel the confusion. Do we want the general readers to scratch their heads and wonder why the portal title is in title-case format but the article title is in sentence-case? No, we want the general readers to be thinking about the subject matter, in this case the "civil rights movement". Our purpose here should be to dispel confusion and to minimize reader astonishment. How can you disagree with that? Paine Ellsworthput'r there 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that as being an appropriate MRV comment. That is a suitable MR comment. My points have been about when a closer can or should call a rough consensus when there is no clear consensus, and on the standing of the editor who makes that call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - I am really surprised that anyone sees a consensus from that discussion. The policies and guidelines are not clearat all with regards to Portal naming, to the point where it is not even clear which policies and guidelines even apply, or should apply. This is a perfectly valid argument to raise, yet the closer seems to have dismissed it out of hand. The conversation basically boiled down to the participants trying to apply WP:COMMONSENSE to the issue, and coming to different good-faith conclusions, as is normal when you get a situation which hasn't really been addressed by the wider community yet.--Aervanath (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as Galobtter has beautifully noted, the opposition was entirely into bringing finer technicalities, to avoid a move.If they have given a single reason, as to why the move would be disadvantageous, rather than--Portals aren't governed by move-related-policies/guidelines., (which isn't a reason), I would have issued a NC close.It may be noted that Amakuru's arguments didn't only involve something of the sort of:--This move-related-guideline support a renaming and hence this must be renamed., which would have yet again justified a NC.It's striking that you raise COMMONSENSE but come to the opposite conclusion.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable arguments, but not from a closer. You should have !voted those points, that could have made a later close so much easier. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your note and would just mention that the boundary between super-voting and closing correctly w.r.t t weighing arguments (rather than a head-count) is a subject of discretion.Anyways, I feel that I've expended enough words at the venue and this'll be my last comment over here.In the meanwhile, the way the Portals RFC is moving, the discussion may be moot, after about a month.Best,
Comment re: non-admin closures: As stated at WP:NACD: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This is not stated as strongly at WP:RMNAC, but frankly I think it should be. The closer clearly anticipated that this would be a controversial close. That being said, non-admin status is never a sufficient reason to overturn a move decision, which is why I did not include it in my !vote above. However, I do recommend that @Winged Blades of Godric: stick to closing uncontroversial discussions.--Aervanath (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This review is probably meaningless as there is an RfC out by the Village pump that is close to getting rid of portals altogether. So this may be much ado about nuttin. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that RfC appears to be a high level of objectionable deletionism – may it be vehemently opposed. Paine Ellsworthput'r there 02:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, per Aervanath, the closer cannot rely on any policy or guideline, which means he took 'I like it' votes because he liked them, sure those votes were couched as '[I like it] to be like other parts of the project under guidelines that apply in those other spaces' but they were still just 'I like it' votes - given such 'I like it' support for the move, the opposes were free to reject the move as editorially unneeded (another example, it's vaguely claimed that somehow people will be confused, but that is just an evidence free assertion). Ironically, in his last bullet point, the closer suggested what a waste of time the move was.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse—it's very simple: it's not a proper name. Tony(talk) 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: you would think so, wouldn't you... but never underestimate the potential for drama and controversy in the most benign of situations. — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...especially when it is a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, as I'm sure you already know, the discussion at Talk:Civil rights movement discussed whether it was a proper name or not, and the consensus was that it is not a proper name. The move request for the portal was not to relitigate that discussion, but to simply bring the portal into line with the article. — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
