Allahabad – "No move" outcome endorsed. The closing statement was found lacking, but would have no effect on the outcome. No such user (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
"Opposes are in Wikipedia policy, while supports are not" as an argument for a closure without specification this is not enough. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. On the merits, it's not immediately clear what the complaint is.
There is a numerical consensus against the move. The contrast grows further sharp, if weighed by the age of accounts.
The first two supports by JayPlaysSTuff and Glennzzl invokes a move-precedent. However, I fail to see how the twoprecedents can serve as an appropriate yardstick.
"Most of the reliable sources have begun using the new name after the name-change" — this was the main thrust driving those RMs, something which has been conclusively rejected over our case. Other editors have also pointed the perils of using WP:OSE.
Vajra Raja's support might be a valid pov but it has no basis in established policy. Tecumseh's arguments are borderline rants (as is RohitKlair's)Clarifying on Havelock Jone's comment based on predictions and whatnot.
Rohit Klair's is indeed devoid of policy - he name-drops COMMONNAME but fails to explain/exhibit how COMMONNAME is met by the target.
desmay's counts are clearly wrong.
Toddy1's replies, in support of opposition, have been brilliant and I did not spot a single effective counter.
Nonetheless, some of the opposes were ludicrous. But overall, the massive superiority of their arguments over the other camp was quite evident. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and reopen (and relist) (uninvolved). The closing summary is not a sufficient summary of a highly contentious discussion with over 20 participants. By my count, there were 8 editors supporting the move and 13 opposing. While the opposers are in the majority, the majority is not so overwhelming as to amount to a clear consensus. While some supporting editors do appear to argue for WP:OFFICIALNAME, as the discussion developed, it was correctly directed towards WP:COMMONNAME and there were the usual arguments as to how to interrogate search engines and the effect of WP:NAMECHANGES, which are arguments based in policy, as are arguments for consistency with other articles. Also, when Rohit klar said that WP:COMMONNAME should be applied rationally, I understand him to be saying that it shouldn't be applied in a way detrimental to the user experience. Whether right or wrong, that is an argument based in policy. On the date the discussion was closed, it had been open for 13 days, but discussion was still continuing. If relisted, a clearer consensus may emerge. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some hestitation in the above. While I don't think the close complied with WP:RMCI, I think it's possible that a careful analysis of the discussion would reach the same conclusion, but I also think it would be preferable to wait for a clearer consensus. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of statistics was dispensed with by the oppose camp about how the current name satisfied relevant policies. None was objected to by the other camp. At the end of the day, that is all. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For such a serious discussion with many divergent opinions, with many aspected debated, it really is not good enough to write “The arguments in favor of the proposal aren't based in policy while the opposes are”. The closer needs to summarise why, which arguments are or are not based in policy, and that summary had better match actual content in the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(involved). So is the solution that TrangaBellam should be asked to write a more detailed explanation? If he/she added the comments that he/she added above, would that be sufficient?-- Toddy1(talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a solution, yes. His comments above massively improve on the RM closing statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Open 2 weeks with no relisting, rough consensus to not move, trout the closer for too brief a closing statement. See no reason to drag it on, which would most likely result in either not moved or no consensus, and the article title would remain the same. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the force in this argument, and I agree it seems very unlikely the outcome of the RM will be that the article is moved. Nevertheless, it is a city with a population of 1.5m, so it is moderately important that we use the right name. The same move was proposed in August 2020 and since then there have been 4 subsequent discussions of the name on the talk page, and I note that an 18 month moratorium on further RMs is now proposed. In the circumstances, it seems better to me to reopen this RM and allow an uninvolved editor to determine consensus so that our process is beyond reproach. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Havelock Jones! Your argument is also strong, and yet Wikipedia tries hard to not be a bureaucracy. Whether or not a moratorium is established, the longer that editors wait to again try to garner consensus for a page move, the more likely they will succeed. For now, the consensus still rests with not changing the name as yet. And as we know, down the road consensus can change. For now, imho this should rest awhile and not be dragged out. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 12:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The longer that editors wait to again try to garner consensus for a page move, the more likely they will succeed
The longer they wait, the more likely their will give up on an unnecessary contentious rename.
The longer they wait, well, talking weeks to months vs days, the more likely it is that the opening statement will be well written.
It may be a large city, but it is known by both names. It is not essential to change, becuase neither name is “wrong”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Havelock Jones Alright, reopening RM is good.
The discussion was in full gear, when TrangaBellam decided to close the discussion without sufficient arguments to do so, I reckon, we give this topic more room, more time, because it really is important to some folks, as it is supposedly the case with TrangaBellam, as he writes he is from India.
Unfortunately there are a number of writers, who want to quickly eliminate the discussion to keep the status quo and again impose a moratorium.
Before there is going to be a 1 year or 18 months moratorium again, we should have a few more weeks time to let a number of writers summon up their opinions, i think that would be fair.
(uninvolved) The closing statement is clearly inadequate. I also disagree with the suggestion that copying the closer's self-endorsement into the RM close is sufficient. The self-endorsement, addressing selected participants' comments one by one, is high on opinionated language and low on actually summarizing the discussion. It is unlike any close that I have read. I suggest that the closer read or re-read the essay Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions and try again. Or, failing that, I would overturn to allow some other uninvolved editor to determine the consensus. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The evaluation of argument strength is another common component in closing statements, especially if your close is different than what the numbers alone would indicate. In addition to being an important part of your explanation, the reasons for discounting particular comments may not be immediately obvious, and superficial inspection may give the impression that you closed incorrectly. from your essay.If you wish for a summary of the discussion: Editors in favor of the move derived support from COMMONNAME (but without detailed proof) or pointed to precedents, that were based on COMMONNAME or opinions, that boiled down to IAR. The first two arguments were rejected by statistical analysis that came from the opposite camp, while the last argument failed to convince anybody else. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree the initial statement was inadequate because of its lack of detail, but it is an accurate summary. The support votes are largely based on "we always use official names" (which is a mis-statement of policy) or pure nationalism. The vote tally is also against the move. There is certainly not consensus to move, and I see consensus to not move; while one could argue it is "no consensus" rather than "consensus to not move" that is a purely academic argument as it would not impact the result. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone agrees, that the reason for closure was not sufficient. If we follow this logically, without a reason the closure has to be overturned and then the RM can in fact be closed again with a sufficient reason.
Only maybe we can debate on how much time will we give the RM again, because people who want to keep the Status Quo are trying to rush the discussion and arrange an 18 month long Moratorium as Was done for 12 months already. As the RM was abruptly finished.
I say we give the discussion a few more weeks, because there are many more arguments of interest, than solely based on
„The support votes are largely based on "we always use official names“.
Endorse per Power. There's clearly no way to divine consensus in support of the move from this discussion, and "consensus against" strikes me as correct: the opposers outnumbered the supporters numerically, and the supporters' arguments indeed resonated less in policy than the opposers'. (The opposers' arguments about official names and consistency are weak from a policy perspective, and the supporters' WP:COMMONNAME argument was not adequately rebutted.) A more thorough closing statement would be preferable (and it probably would have been best to leave this obviously controversial closure to an admin), but the outcome is correct and it would be imprudent to keep this going around in procedural circles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
uninvolved: Endorse and trout, as suggested by P.I. Ellsworth. Though light on detail, the original close got the rough consensus right and was correct in discounting some Support votes. I'd say 90 out of 100 closers would have closed with 'consensus to not move' or 'no consensus'. Since the outcome is the same either way, there's a strong WP:NOTBURO argument to keeping the discussion closed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
