Wikipedia:Move review

Administrator instructions

You should look at this flowchart when deciding whether or not to list a move review request.

Move review is a process to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of Wikipedia page move discussions, including requested moves (RM), categories for discussion discussions (CfD), and redirects for discussion discussions (RfD), to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below.

While the page move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is notEdit

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please consult with the closer or post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), WP:Article titles, the Manual of Style, a naming convention or the community norm of consensus should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

CfDs[1] and RfDs can only be reviewed here if the relevant discussion was limited in scope to renaming; CfDs or RfDs[2] involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

InstructionsEdit

Initiating move reviewsEdit

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a move review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review requestEdit

 
1.

Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer.

2.

Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, rm_page with the name of the move discussion page if needed, rm_section if needed, closer and closer_section with the post-move discussion information, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request-->
|closer= <!--User name of editor who closed the move request-->
|closer_section= <!--Name of the section of closer's talk page where discussion took place-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~

If either the |closer= or |closer_section= parameter is omitted, the result will include "No discussion on closer's talk page". When

  • |closer= < closer's username > and
  • |closer_section= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >

are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.

If the |closer_section= link is to the section on the closer's talk page where the closer has only been notified of Move review (see step 3) and the closer has not actually discussed their close with another editor on their talk page, the result will include a "No discussion on closer's talk page" link to the Move review notice.

3.

If you have not done so already, inform the closer of the Move review discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=11 August 2020}}. Do not tag the article.

5.

If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the active discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 August}}
6.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move reviewEdit

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of page move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the page move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that move review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a move review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.

Closing reviewsEdit

A nominated page should remain on move review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also, add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=April 24 2015|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision optionsEdit

The following set of options represent the typical results of a move review decision, although complex page move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV closer's decision RM closer's decision Move review closed as Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM Open
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM Closed
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Open
5. Relist Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open

 

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Those that involve renames (Template:Cfr), for all other types of CFDs use deletion review.
  2. ^ Generally for those that don't involve any proposed or suggested deletion, where only the redirect's target was being discussed or if the redirect should be a disambiguation page, for other (even those that were retargeted where deletion was proposed or considered) use deletion review.

Active discussionsEdit

2020 AugustEdit

History of the Jews in the Czech RepublicEdit

History of the Jews in the Czech Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The closer did not follow the instructions at WP:RMCI, specifically the instructions for dealing with multiple outcomes: although the original suggested target was rejected, several users were in favor of moving to "History of the Jews in the Czech lands", with only one opposed. (Note: I and another user asked them to reverse the close on Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Czech_Republic#Revert_of_recent_redirect, and Calidum responded there). It was inappropriately closed as "not moved" with regard to all proposed targets. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support move to "Czech lands". Looking closely at follow up comments, most of the bold opposes end up agreeing with the move to the Czech lands, so there does appear to be consensus, with all agreeing on the rationale (that the Czech Republic is a political entity, not the historical geographical area, an objection which seems reasonable (ie not crazy)). I cannot see any policy reasons why this reasonably argued consensus should be ignored. I don't know if this is outside the purview of a move review, but I see there has been something of a conflict over the name of the article Czech Republic vs a move to Czechia, and a move here to "the Czech lands" might be politic to avoid that argument spilling over into other pages where it doesn't need to.OsFish (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reclose as "Move to History of the Jews in the Czech lands" I had read this discussion and was planning on closing it to that effect, but got distracted by something and didn't get round to it. There was a clear consensus that this was an accepted alternative (although personally I agree with AjaxSmack and think this is a bad idea; I would only rename it if "Czech lands" covered a different geographical area to the current nation). Number 57 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:North Macedonian politicians by party and Category:North Macedonian politiciansEdit

Category:North Macedonian politicians by party (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
Category:North Macedonian politicians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

It was brought to my attention that two CFDs that I closed recently with a strong consensus to rename may not have considered conventions regarding the naming of Macedonia-related subjects (see WP:NCMAC) in the discussion. I think that this is worth taking a look at, so I'm listing my own closes in move review. Pinging the participants of that CFD: HapHaxion, Oculi, Marcocapelle, Carlossuarez46, Laurel Lodged, and Peterkingiron. bibliomaniac15 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Overturn. There's a naming convention in place which clearly establishes 'Macedonian' as the term for nationality. The policy was based on a wide consensus established by a RfC and nobody in the discussion seems to be aware of it. Local consensus does not override consensus of the wider community. Perhaps even more importantly, local or any kind of consensus can not ignore reliable sources, the vast majority of which favor 'Macedonian'. There's an ongoing research on this topic. I am not aware of any English language dictionary proposing 'North Macedonian'. The term, while being inaccurate, is also controversial and considered offensive by the nationality in question. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist, agree that WP:NCMAC should be part of the discussion, but at the same time WP:NCMAC does not offer a final solution for adjectives. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Marcocapelle: WP:NCMAC#Adjectival_form_of_North_Macedonia says

      Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

      That seems pretty clear to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 'of North Macedonia' or 'in North Macedonia' is exactly what I would support instead. We do not disagree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The specific policy part that applies here is nationality:

The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian."

. The policy part you're quoting is about the adjectival form of the country. The people, the citizens of that country are called "Macedonian" by the policy and by the vast majority of reliable sources. This of course goes for article titles, categories etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn The CFD decision is perverse and disruptive. The category tree is Category:Macedonian people, and this pair seems to be the only exception to the "Macedonian fooers" convention of its subcats.
The closer erred by allowing a WP:LOCALCON to override a naming convention, when the localcon offered no reason to make these categories an exception to that convention. This failure to uphold the naming convention would be an an error in any CFD close, but it is a particularly serious failure when the convention is not just documented, but has been hammered out in lengthy discussions under an ARBCOM-supervised process.
I am personally sympathetic to the idea that the demonym "Macedonian" is inadequate in many categories, and am inclined prefer a less ambiguous formulation that includes "North Macedonia(n)". However, these issues are far from straightforward, and I am not well-versed in Macedonian topics ... and the parallels with Ireland make me shudder. "Northern Irish fooers" and "Republic of Ireland fooers" may appear obvious to some people, but they would be almost unanimously opposed by people from Ireland.
Extensive discussions have not shown any consensus to create these inconsistencies, and the worst possible outcome is to create inconsistencies where every single category is fought over individually.
Those who believe that there should be some deviations from the demonym "Macedonian" should open an RFC at WP:NCMAC to define when these apply, so that this can be resolved with a broad consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also want to notify about the discussions on Macedonian activists and Macedonian academics. I've put them on relist with links to this move review. bibliomaniac15 05:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and do not relist. Agree entirely with BHG's view that individual cfds to rename twigs of consistently named trees is disruptive (renames which conflict with WP:C2C, a speedy criterion). Arguments that such individual categories are not 'nationality' would be resolved by re-parenting the category, not renaming it in incorrect parents. Oculi (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Moreover Category:North Macedonia people, created recently by Marcocapelle, seems to be contrary to WP:NCMAC. There are areas best avoided, Irish, Australian and anything to do with Birmingham or opera springing to mind. Portals. Oculi (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

List of prominent operasEdit

List of prominent operas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Per Talk:List of prominent operas#Post move and the linked discussion on the discussion closer's talk page, this move should be reverted since the close goes against consensus. The closer was asked about the discussion's close over a week ago, and never responded. I believe this close and move should be reverted, and the discussion reopened and relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC) (Parts struck out. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC) )

I've struck out parts of my statement I no longer stand by. However, I have no interest or desire to withdraw this discussion, and will not be. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. (uninvolved) The discussion was a mess (as most open-ended move requests are) and I don't see how the closer could say there was any consensus reached. Calidum 16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly no consensus to move from a bad name to another bad name (and there's no good concise name in sight). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    The closer, whom I asked twice to revert the bad close, hasn't edited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Two reasons: 1) after a closer has moved a page from one bad title to another, it makes no sense to me to just move the page back to the first bad title, and 2) see this as a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS situation, so what should happen is that this MRV should be procedurally and immediately closed, a new RM should be opened with hopefully a better, closed-ended choice of name, and we should not ever bring closers to MRV who do their best in this type of situation to pick a title that might eventually lead to an improved final resting place for the article's title. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Blatant WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Blatant WP:Supervote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. This type of "supervote" is sanctioned by the closing instructions linked to above. The closer saw a consensus to change the name of the article; however, there was no agreement as to what the new name should be. In such a case the closer chooses a name from the ones suggested, and any editor at any time can start a new RM. The closing instructions are specific: if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time. Now, isn't that better than getting bogged down here at MRV? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Supervoting is sanctioned by WP:NOGOODOPTIONS? Have you read the third paragraph of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS? It appears not, and in any case, some editors are prone to unilaterally writing all sorts of dubious things into RMCI.
      In this case, it was one of those weak "?" proposals that should be forbidden. The proposer not making a proposal makes for very poor discussions. In that poor discussion, someone suggests a new alternative, someone agrees, and two disagree, others remaining silent on the late mid-RM proposal. That is NOT a consensus by any definition, and the logic of the closer is textbook SUPERVOTE. It was no consensus, and there was no need to do anything. Further, the mentions of AfD being possibly more appropriate (the list is WP:OR) undermines any claim to a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Disagree, and the third paragraph makes it clear. If you think that paragraph should be changed, then start a discussion on its talk page, not in this venue. The RM was all over the map, and there was no consensus only for where to move the page, and there was clear consensus that nobody was really happy with the then current title. Sometimes a closer has to step in and decide, at least for the time being. I've done it many times myself and was never brought to move review over it. This discussion should be procedurally closed or withdrawn by the nom, and a new RM opened when editors are ready with a sound new title. I would suggest using a title that corresponds with what the sources call these operas. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • "The RM was all over the map ... there was no consensus", for sure.
          "there was clear consensus that nobody was really happy with the then current title"? No. Not on your page with the definition of "clear consensus", and not "really happy" is a pretty weak threshold. There was no consensus that a rename was needed.
          "Sometimes a closer has to step in and decide", sure, but not this time.
          "I've done it many times myself ..." I've seen, and I've quietly approved, but those cases do not justify this over-bold unnecessary supervote.
          "This discussion should be procedurally closed or withdrawn by the nom" Why??
          "a new RM opened when editors are ready with a sound new title. I would suggest using a title that corresponds with what the sources call these operas". And here is the elephant in the room. This list of operas has no sources. It is WP:OR. more below to Red Slash. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Then you must not consider the provided sources to be reliable? They call them "grand operas" and "great operas", not "important" or "prominent" operas. What pray tell is wrong with using those sources? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I read your response below to Gerda Arendt. Had my say and you've had yours, and "never the twain shall meet" (Kipling). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with using the sources? Nothing. What is wrong is filtering those lists five or more times on nine sources, that is an arbitrary WP:SYNTH for "important" or "prominent". If the sources call them "grand operas" and "great operas", then so should Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • OMG, we agree on something! and there is no reason to use "List of..." in the title. It could be called Great operas or Grand operas. I suppose we shouldn't be making such args here at MRV where only the closure is judged. It appears that rather than closing this procedurally or by voluntary withdrawal, we must wait a month or two or three before another RM becomes an option(?) tsk tsk. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Paine, with the way this discussion is going, I actually would be surprised if a new move request is not allowed immediately after this MRV closes. And regarding my refusal to withdraw: Honestly, I thought this MRV would have been a speedy overturn, but I was waaayyy off base there per what has unfolded thus far in the discussion. Also ... it may be worth stating that even though I started this MRV (quoting what I stated to Amakuru below): "... during the time the [requested move] discussion was closed and this MRV was opened, this revert of the move Red Slash performed happened, so I moved it back" ... so, even though I opened the MRV and didn't necessarily support the status quo after the move Red Slash performed, I take a bit of pride and respect in the fact that Wikipedia is a community project, and know/understand that closes of discussions have to be given the chance for community, uninvolved input whenever applicable ... such as why we are here now. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's all good, Steel Man, all good. And I'm all for community involvement to garner consensus, it's certain. I was a little surprised that you didn't withdraw and just open a new RM per the closing instructions; however, that can also be done directly after this review is closed. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I agree with both of Paine Ellsworth's comments above. A careful reading of the discussion and closing summary show that the closer considered all comments and came to a reasonable conclusion. That's not to say that a finding of no consensus might not also have been reasonable, and not to say that the conclusion must be final for all time. All closes are in a sense "supervotes", and are inappropriate only when they obviously ignore a discussion and/or policy. And especially with this type of open-ended proposal, with no one really defending the current title or expressing opposition to any possible move, it was a question what to move it to, more than whether to move it, and the closer's choice from among several suggestions was reasonable. The result is not obviously worse than the previous title, and if anyone has a better title in mind, it will be more likely to gain consensus in a new RM than in reopening this one. Station1 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning. Firstly, the argument that "all closes are in a sense supervotes" is an argument that all closes are, in a sense, invalid. That's what supervote means: an invalid closing. So clearly, not all closings are supervotes. Secondly, I also disagree that there was a careful reading and summation of views. There was simply no consensus at all that the status quo title was "absurd", nor was there any consensus whatsoever that the article might be an AfD candidate. The inclusion criteria - which appear to meet notability guidelines for lists - at no point were challenged. Some of the contributions in the discussion actually appeared to be unaware of the inclusion criteria, which a careful reading should have picked up on. (for example, it is not simply a list of operas by date). OsFish (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The argument that "all closes are in a sense supervotes" is an argument that the concept of "supervote" is meaningless. A "supervote" is no different from a "decision". If we agree that discussions are not supposed to be votes in the first place, there cannot be a supervote. A closer is a judge of the arguments presented in the discussion, not a voter any more than the participants are voters. If, for example, a majority of participants argue "Title A sounds better" while a small minority cite policy, logic and reliable sources in favor of Title B, the closer should supervote/decide in favor of B. The only question for a move review should be whether that decision was reasonable or not. Station1 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:SUPERVOTE explicitly states that choosing the !minority choice because it is clearly more grounded in policy is not a supervote - it's "admin's discretion". People understand that. People aren't simply saying "there was no !majority". The issue here for many is that closure policy was not followed. The thing is, and it's quite important, the closer appeared not to understand what the page is about. They were ignorant of the inclusion criteria for the list. They wrote "maybe an opera is important in your opinion, maybe it's not, but if it doesn't show up in Google Books, it's probably not prominent" - but that's not how operas are selected for inclusion. This meant they could not understand the arguments over "important" or "prominent", or why their suggestion of "list of operas by date" would have been simply incorrect. So they were not in a position to apply policy correctly using admin discretion. That leaves us with trying to establish if there was a consensus. There was none. Not even that the current title was bad. It was an open discussion that achieved no consensus. Elsewhere on this page, someone has suggested that because people were not explicitly supporting the status quo title in opposing a move, they must have rejected it, but that's simply not how it works.OsFish (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't want to get hung up on the semantics of the word "supervote", since that's a digression at best. I do want to point out that what you link to as "closure policy" is not policy or even a guideline, so, like the supervote essay, even if it weren't followed, that would not be an automatic reason to overturn. I do agree that if the closer really didn't understand what the page was about, and that resulted in a bad decision, that would be a reason to overturn. But I don't think that that's true in this case. I don't see any argument that "important" is better than "prominent" in the original discussion; even your opposition to "prominent" said only that "prominent" was no better than "important", not that it was worse. Others, below, have said "prominent" is better. I still think that there was more than one reasonable outcome for this messy, open-ended RM, of which the close is one. Station1 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We are here not to assess which title is better (for what it's worth by "no better" I mean "worse" and in reference to the inclusion criteria), but whether the closure was in line with policy. Several people had expressed a view before the new title had been suggested, so it's not fair reflection of everyone's reasoning. I also have to say, I don't follow the reasoning that says if someone clearly does not understand the inclusion criteria for the list page, it doesn't therefore mean they don't understand the purpose of the list page. Anyway, wouldn't it be better (and simpler) just to have a move discussion again with "prominent" as the new option? The problem was seeded by have a formal move to ? discussion. OsFish (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" would've certainly been a pretty reasonable answer, but it would've left us with a terrible title that no one liked. I think the article needs to go to WP:AFD, honestly. Red Slash 04:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Improving something more obviously unsuitable to make it look less obviously unsuitable, but in substance no better, is not in my opinion an improvement.
      My usual process on looking at an RM is to look through the reference list. Rarely do I find what I found here, that there is no source at all for this topic. AfD, yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC) On further thought, I don't think this is an AfD issue, but a small re-scoping and re-titling issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • What in the section "Lists consulted", linked from the lead, did you not understand? The criteria are mentionings in well-defined lists. Would you really want five to nine inline citations after each opera to know exactly in which of the nine lists an opera was mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Hi Gerda Arendt. I would be great to see someone like you take the lead on what to do here. Yes, I saw "Lists consulted". It is a bibliography style reference for WP:Original research. No source contains this list. The criteria for synthesizing this list is arbitrary, sensible but arbitrary, it is not source-based. Why five out of nine? This list would be fine as a WikiProject ProjectSpace page for monitoring and "Lists consulted prioritizing work, but this list is original to Wikipedia. It is not an independently notable standalone list. The alternative justification is that it is a navigation aid. As a navigation aid, it could be worked up as a table listing *every* opera included in any of the nine source lists, or the subset of operas included in all of the nine sources lists, but anything in between is WP:OR, even under the guise of navigation. It could be tabulated, in a sortable table, with a column that is a count of how many times each opera is listed in a source list, which would enable any reader to easily re-create this list by selecting the operas listed by 5 or more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I had nothing to do with the creation of this list, think it's great for some and not harmful for others, life is short, and I mentioned "waste of time" a few times already. There are nine lists (not one) by reputed sources, so each of those is a reliable source, and why five not three, don't ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn 1) There was simply no consensus that the status quo title was unacceptable, so justfiying a move by WP:NOGOODOPTIONS is not applicable here. 2) The closer stated that "The current title is absurd, and honestly so is the title I'm moving this to". Not only can that not be justification for a move (it's absurd to resolve a discussion by deliberately moving to an absurd title), the notion that the current title was "absurd" is not something found in the discussion. Combined with point 1, this seems to make the closing a clear WP:SUPERVOTE because it fails to reflect the discussion. 3) The closer stated "it makes me think that a list of operas with such subjective inclusion criteria shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia". However, the inclusion criteria are not "subjective" in the sense that Wikipedians have been making subjective judgements about each opera. They are sourced to the judgements of recognised experts in published works. This meets notability criteria WP:LISTN. I wonder if the closer was aware of that. In general, this is one of the most, er, surprising closures I've seen on Wikipedia. OsFish (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree, and find it odd that the name of this page was changed without agreement on an alternative, particularly since the name it has been changed to creates more confusion: there are pieces in the list considered 'important' by these different standard sources which are not 'widely known' or 'conspicuous', but are important for historical reasons in relation to the history of the form, of the composer and his or her school, or national trends in opera. I can't think of a better term than 'important'.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • PS every editor on wikipedia will choose the sources he or she wishes to use as references or reliable sources, and put other sources to one side - does that make all articles subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg2p0B0u8m (talkcontribs) 15:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn This is the kind of bad closure that led to Sarah Jane Brown and all the debates on its talk page (in hindsight this move review should never have been endorsed). Picking a bad title just because the current title is bad doesn't make the encyclopedia better. If this RM is endorsed, I'm reopening that can of worms immediately. IffyChat -- 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This is a textbook case if WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Nobody said they liked the previous title, and although there was no particular consensus coming through in any direction for a new title, it could still be discerned from the conversation that changing "important" to "prominent" is an improvement. Nobody really disputes that specific point, so rathwr than leaving the previous bad title in place, the new slightly improved version is better than nothing. Anecdotally, as someone seeing this for the first time, I would certainly concur that the new title is vastly better than the old one). My advice would be to leave the new title in place, don't go back to the previous version with its meaningless "important" adjective, and if anybody thinks they have an even better idea, then feel free to RM for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: "...I would certainly concur that the new title is vastly better than the old one". As the original proposer of the move request (and this review), I'd have to somewhat agree with that (though I "weak oppose"d it in the discussion), but that's obviously not why we're here now. (Dang, it can be difficult to attempt one's best to be non-biased in a move review after being obviously biased in its respective discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      @Steel1943: Well, why are we here then? Evidently you object to the move close, since you opened the MRV here. But you say you somewhat agree with the outcome, so do you want it pushed back to the old title, or don't you? In the end, given the lack of any sort of consensus for any other title (in particular "List of operas by date", which was rejected as not accurately describing the page), the only decision the closer is left with is whether there is a preference for the use of "prominent" versus "important" in those !votes which directly address that question. And in effect, despite your "weak oppose" to using prominent, you clearly didn't like the previous title either and you actually expressed a preference for "prominent" as the best option if the page had to be titled that way at all. (At least that's how I read your comment at the RM, and you seem to be affirming it in your remark here). So that means, in directly assessing the "important" versus "prominent" options, 3 preferred prominent and 1 (the final !voter) preferred important. Admittedly all the previous voters were not consulted, and if someone wants to relist and ping them in to see what they think then I wouldn't be averse to that. But equally, I think the argument that "prominent" is more objective than "important" could be carried from the arguments presented, and that's what the closer concluded. Prominent carries a suggestion of being well known and highly regarded in society as a whole, while "important" is more of a personal thing - I might think a particular opera very important while you think it's junk.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      @Amakuru: "Well, why are we here then?" Concerns with the close, so thus I opened this request due to my and others' concerns with the close (regardless if I liked the new title or not) and the status of the discussion I linked on the article's talk page since ... and because no one else filed the MRV, even with that section's level of participation ... since that's what MRV is about: concerns with the close, but at the same time not being the place to start "move discussion, part II." Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      Ah, fair enough. And of course that is what MRV is for, not starting new discussions. But fundamentally, disregarding any personal views I may have on the matter, and the terminology, do I think this close is defensible? On balance, yes. I would quite likely have closed it the same way myself, or at the very least relisted with a request for someone to come up with a good reason not to make the switch because that's how the conversation seemed to have ended up.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • "I would quite likely have closed it the same way..." That stance (most likely reflected in your "endorse" stance), plus the stances of others who said "endorse" is the reason why I brought this here: MRV exists for uninvolved editors to provide their opinion from the outside looking in to make sure the actions after a close have a community-backed consensus basis. To illustrate, during the time the discussion was closed and this MRV was opened, this revert of the move Red Slash performed happened, so I moved it back (though it's looking like I was wrong about the "temporarily" part in my edit summary ... ha), considering the move Red Slash performed is considered de facto consensus unless/until the move gets overturned here. Either way, in regards to the discussion close being "defensible" ... I'm not sure, but IMO, if I were an uninvolved editor making a decision on the move discussion, I would have relisted it since I would not have seen clear consensus, since the discussion had not been relisted yet, and since the discussion had not been open for an incredibly long period of time (which, to me, would be a month.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      de facto consensusnot have seen clear consensus – which is it? We are are here because there was clearly no consensus. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
      That comment makes me believe you may need to reread what I said in context. Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reading over the entire discussion, nobody advocated for the current title and most comments wanted the title to be changed. There were several options thrown out, and of all the options that were given, the one that was ultimately chosen by the closer had the most support/least opposition. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    When the discussion happened, it was "List of important operas", and four users opposed a move, of not too many (no time to count exactly). I'd call that no consensus. A title describing exactly what the list covers would be too long to work with, and "prominent" (sounds a bit like "well-known" to me) seems not better to me because some are important in other respects. English is not my first language, though, and I was told just today that "before" and "formerly" mean the same. Willing to learn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. I don't see sufficient support for a move in the discussion. Re "no good options," the problem is that people who supported some sort of move were asking for mutually incompatible options, so it's not clear supporting a move to "by date" implies support for "prominent". The RM was already open-ended, so it's okay if the result is that nobody has a title that has consensus - in which case the long-term title should "win" for stability reasons. SnowFire (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 JulyEdit

Christian IX of Denmark (closed)Edit

Chinese Communist Party (closed)Edit

Fuel pump (closed)Edit

David Jack (footballer)Edit

David Jack (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

non-admin closure of a move where there was not clear consensus in the discussion, and so contrary to WP:RMNAC. JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse as closer. Per RMNAC: NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures. and the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure.. I have participated in and closed many WP:PRIMARYTOPIC RM discussions (which this discussion turned on), and consider myself to be highly experienced in this area of Wikipedia's guidelines. IffyChat -- 11:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Also per RMNAC: Non-admin closes normally require that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)., which is the point at hand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved) RMNAC is not as restrictive as claimed. More importantly, it's the right close to "move" anyways. Consensus among participants was that long-term significance was more heavily argued than page views (the footballer getting 40/day). WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says that There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors ... While signficance and page views are valid criteria, there were more in support of the significance. Note to the RM closer, Iffy, that your personal opinion of If we were forced to pick a primary topic, the footballer would probably win seems neither relevant nor correct for a close.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I did not participate in the discussion, and might have opposed it if I had, but the close was a reasonable one. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result." And since everyone seems to like quoting parts of RMNAC they think supports their case, let's remember "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Calidum 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse while I would probably have closed this as no consensus the supports did at least make some points about long-term significance, yes they were weaker than the arguments against the move in terms of usage but that might just show that there's a split in the consensus and that if in doubt its best for the closer to assume that there is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    No consensus is status quo, not "no consensus so moved", even with dabs. And this makes the point: non-admin closes normally require that the consensus is clear, and it wasn't. It seems from this discussion that that instruction in WP:RMNAC needs to be removed as incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This reads like a !vote to overturn, not endorse -- if you are arguing there is no consensus, we don't default to no primary topic, we would keep the status quo.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse as nominator. Although I made no further comments after submitting the nomination, the four "support" votes for dislodging the footballer from his primary position came from Ortizesp and GiantSnowman, both of whom specialize in footballer articles, as well as from two longtime admins, Andrewa and Necrothesp, who felt sufficiently strongly about the matter so as to return for additional rebuttals, with Andrewa even creating a discussion section about imperfection of primary topic selection (User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#David Jack). —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 00:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    From that discussion section: "We might as well have tossed a coin to decide.", i.e., there was no clear consensus, as specified for a non-admin close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BADNAC. There was no clear consensus. Essentially, that was a close appropriate for “admin discretion”, which non-admins do not enjoy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist (uninvolved): "If we were forced to pick a primary topic, the footballer would probably win" feels like it would have belonged more in a !vote than a close. AI'm not as sure that close is correct that long-significance arguments favor moving. The usage graphs show relatively level usage over the life of the article and is likely what comments such as "Click on the links provided. The footballer has long-term significance" imply should be understood from the charts. I can see the close at best being no-consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @PaleAqua: There is no guideline that page views are the primary determining factor for a primary topic, nor that page views are the main criteria for long-term signficance (see WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY). It would be a WP:SUPERVOTE for a closer to weigh them heavier than the participants did.—Bagumba (talk)
    • I agree that page views only a tool to gauge usage. Even usage and long-term significance are only "commonly consider"ed. That said the argument for moving primarily is that the page does not have a primary topic. Opposers used page views and time lines (60 years after his passing) to argue that the footballer was the primary topic. Supporters arguments were mostly of the form that there was no primary topic. One of the stronger support asserted knights of the realm and an award-winning musician currently on the road were examples that should have as much claim to the topic, but no data to show that. There are weaknesses to the arguments on both sides here. Usages has been demonstrated, and arguments both for and against long-term significance are debated without a clear consensus. Other comments such as JHunterJ's argument of what serves the reader combined with the states for the disambiguation page are also strong arguments. I don't think that the close gave proper weight to the lack of consensus for long-term significance and seems to only credit the opposes for usage arguments. PaleAqua (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn <uninvolved> I'm not sure how I would vote, but this is a discussion evenly split between policy based rationales. I see no way that it could be interpreted as a consensus to move. The closer seems to recognize that the consensus was split, but overruled this because of an interpretation that community consensus says otherwise, which is not the case. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The participants were split in their interpretations of how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be applied in this case, not that the consensus was split. That diff (which I presume you mean to include the entire quote) does not say what you think it says. IffyChat -- 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree, that diff does not say that "consensus was split".—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Don't see a consensus to move yet in that discussion, so the decision should have been "no consensus", in which case I would have relisted the RM. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Clearly no consensus here. Though once again the introduction of historical significance to PT rears its ugly confusing head. MR is overrun due to artificial and unnecessary conflicts resulting directly from this terrible decision. Long-term significance is implicit in the usage criteria to a degree sufficient to obviate a separate explicit criteria that often is n conflict and leads to much unnecessary debate - if it’s that significant then its usage will reflect that. —В²C 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The problem with this argument, and I'm sure you're well aware of this, is that there is a community consensus for both prongs of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; and the place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, not in individual move reviews. If your position (that usage should be the only or primary criteria considered) was one supported by community consensus, I would never have closed this RM as Moved and we wouldn't be here. IffyChat -- 13:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Except, respectfully, the consensus has never been that a topic can only be a primary topic if it unambiguously meets both prongs. We have plenty of move discussions, including ones initiated by users in this discussion, where the consensus decision is that a primary topic is a primary because it overwhelmingly is more significant in the long term despite not being so with page views, and the other way around. There has never been a consensus that arguments that focus more on one prong are somehow unacceptable, as this close seems to have determined.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The community consensus is the opposite, that absent a single "victor" for long-term significance (and so to avoid surprising a reader looking for "apples" with the computer company), usage plays a large role in serving the readership so using it. The opposes in the move review were not advocating for using usage as the only or primary criterion; and the close here took the view that long-term significance should be the only or primary criterion, which definitely isn't the case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Both sides focused more on one prong than the other, that doesn't mandate a No consensus closure (or that an admin close the discussion), but instead requires the closer to analyse the arguments to see which side has the stronger arguments and to decide if there is a consensus or not. That is precisely what I did when closing (which I explaied to the initiator of this MR on my user talk page). IffyChat -- 15:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Non-admin closures are for when the consensus is clear. If the consensus had been clear, no explanation would have been needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Iffy, since WP policy is descriptive rather than proscriptive changes have to happen one article at a time until there is sufficient grounds for a policy change. So individual RM and MR discussions is precisely where arguments to change RM policy must usually be initially presented. —-В²C 06:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • And this gets to the problem at hand. You had to use admin discretion for this close, because consensus wasn't clear from the discussion, and so it wasn't up for non-admin closure. This isn't a case of "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin"; it's that fact with the lack of clear consensus, per the move close guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
        • FWIW, WP:RMNAC differs: While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate.Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • As I said above, if Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days). is no longer the consensus, WP:RMNAC should be updated to remove it. If it is the consensus, it should be followed, or an explanation why this one wasn't normal is needed -- it seems like a normal enough RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • For whatever reason, RMNAC seems to be more liberal (and convoluted) than WP:BADNAC.—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
              • WP:BADNAC also says The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. and below it WP:NACPIT: Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions. Everything warns against this closure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist since consensus was not clear. While WP:RMNAC doesn't have the force of policy, it exists for a reason, and forestalling brouhahas like this is clearly one of them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. The original discussion had no consensus, but fortuitously it resulted in disambiguation of the base title for over two weeks, allowing us to collect more accurate pageview data than had the footballer occupied the base title continuously. I will note for the record that during the period 7/15-7/31, David Jack (footballer) has 64% of pageviews. For me anything 50-70% is borderline for declaring a primary topic based on pageviews, and other factors should be considered such as Google Web/News/Scholar/Books/Ngram search as well as historical significance. So more discussion seems to be the best option. -- King of ♥ 03:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY does not mandate that page view data is the main determiner of primary topic. In any event, the footballer is getting a scant 40 views/day.—Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    It doesn't mandate it but it certainly makes clear that page views are a policy-based way to determine primary topics. But that is beside the point; we aren't here to debate the move, but the closure. The closer deciding that !votes using page views as the primary way to determine primary topic is overriden by other arguments is certainly a valid !vote, just as the opposite would be (ruling that a discrepancy in page view stats may overpower uncertainty about long term significance). But it is just that -- a !vote, not a determination that can be made to rule a consensus that did not exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    As someone uninvolved who endorsed the close, I did so because both sides (significance vs page views) had valid arguments, so I deferred to the side with more suppporters—those arguing significance. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    And I definitely think that's a fair interpretation, but these sorts of cases, where there are valid arguments being made on both sides but the "majority" is pretty slim, and the argument has only been up for a week vs. relisting, are the exact sort of close calls (especially when the decision is not "no consensus" but rather determining there is a consensus) that admin closes are better designed for. It doesn't help that the closing rationale was not that both sides made valid arguments and therefore the slight numbers win, but rather that one set of arguments are more legitimate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Novae (closed)Edit

Murder in TexasEdit

Murder in Texas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closer @Amkgp appear to have simply counted heads (contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE), and ignored WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus. There is no sign of the closer making any attempt to follow the instruction to evaluate their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions ... which are crucial in this case, because I challenged all the oppose !votes on fact and policy.
When I raised the issues at User talk:Amkgp#RM_close, the non-admin closer @Amkgp made no attempt to engage with the issues I raised. I don't know whether this was conscious evasion or simply failure to understand policy ... but either way, this is a WP:BADNAC#2: the outcome was likely to be controversial, so the close should have been left to an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse Amkgp made the right call here. This RM was open for an extended period of time, and was clearly contentious (2 supported as proposed, 2 wanted something different, and 3 opposed any move entirely). I don't find anything cited by the opposition to be worth throwing out any more than anything cited by the supports. (Just fyi, I probably would've agreed with Paintspot/Crouch if I commented.) Nohomersryan (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • My instinct is to say overturn and relist because discussion was live even shortly before the close, indicating that continued participation in the discussion was likely. Although no discussion is entitled to relisting, this would be a prime candidate for such treatment because it is reasonably possible that continued discussion could have led to a clear consensus, which is preferable. However, if this "no consensus" outcome is maintained, I would suggest as the next step the creation of a draft on the actual concept of murder in Texas (how is it currently defined under state law and how has this changed over time, how is it investigated and punished, what are the specific murder statistics, and what are the most notable examples), which would immediately become the clear primary topic of the term once it was ready to move to mainspace. BD2412 T 19:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @BD2412, I agree that such an article specifically about murder in Texas would immediately become the clear primary topic of the term. However, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT:

      The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary

      ... so the existence or non-existence of a standalone article on murder in Texas should not have been a relevant factor in the discussion. The closer should have discounted the !votes which claimed that it was a factor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
      • An article specifically about murder in Texas would NOT immediately become the primary topic. Unless such an article garnered more interest than the film article as measured by page views it would not ever be primary. This is the fundamental point BHG doesn’t seem to fully appreciate or they would not have made the proposal in the first place, much less started this MR. Most people searching with murder in Texas are looking for the film, so the film is the primary topic, by definition. —В²C 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • After all these years participating RM discussions, B2C can hardly have failed to know know by now that pageviews are not the only determinant of primary topic. The other test is long-term significance, which the film clearly fails. It's a great pity that B2C chooses to accuse me of a lack of understanding, when the actual problem is that B2C is misrepresenting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That cherrypicking of the guideline is classic WP:PLAYPOLICY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
          • HS wasn’t even mentioned in the RM. but yeah, its corrosive influence is palpable there, and now here. I opposed the insertion of the long-term significance criterion into PT precisely because of the confusion, ambiguity, and conflict it creates, as exemplified in this RM and MR. The only reasonable interpretation is to use long term significance as a tie-breaker when the usage criteria (traditionally determined by page views) does not indicate a clear winner. After all, the point of PT is to improve search experience - getting users to the pages they seek efficiently. We don’t do that by putting less-likely-to-be-sought pages at base names, even when they’re more “historically significant”. It’s objectively counter-productive to do it. So, in this case we had a clear winner based on page views, so no need to look at historical significance. Now, if there’s basically a tie based on page views, it makes sense to look at historical significance. But if they’re given equal weight then we might as well start deciding titles based on coin tosses. I don’t think that’s reasonable. —В²C 23:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Even so, I don't mess around. BD2412 T 23:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Such contrived articles are unlikely to get much traffic. What shall we do with Murder in Mesopotamia? —В²C 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
                • We have articles like Transportation in Texas that suffer no such complaint. U.S. states have well-established laws defining murder and its prosecution, and gather copious materials on such prosecutions. I doubt the same can be said for Mesopotamia, so it isn't relevant. BD2412 T 03:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
          • And here we have B2C laying their practice of WP:Tendentious editing. B2C lost the argument about whether to include LTs in PRIMARYTOPIC ... but instead of accepting accept the consensus, B2C is trying WP:GAME the system by acting as if LTS was not a criterion. For the record WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say that the purpose of PT is to improve search experience. And it does not say that usage is primary of LTS. If B2C wants to change WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then they should open an RFC. But instead, B2C is conducting an attrition strategy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse It is obvious that there was no consensus, especially if the arguments are evaluated (“Fails WP:ASTONISH”? Really?). That said, while a closer is never obligated to provide a detailed analysis, the community is owed one upon request. That’s a responsibility you pick up when you close. I hope Amkgp steps up and edits their close to provide the requested assessment of arguments. —В²C 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    I made that comment. And yes, it badly fails WP:ASTONISH. A Wikipedia reader searching for Murder in Texas expects to see an article on murders in Texas, capital punishment for murder, maybe a redirect to Crime in Texas or a secitio there, etc. She does not expect to see something on a film.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move – basically another case of B2C claiming that precision is bad. Stupid arguments should be evaluated as such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move – exactly, this was a ridiculous non-admin close that flies in the face of WP:CRITERIA, since murder in Texas means exactly the same as homicide in Texas and should redirect like that to crime in Texas. Would also suggest a review of other closes made by the same editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • You’re ignoring the fact that there is no film named Homicide in Texas getting more page views than the page on crime in Texas. —В²C 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
As this comment is only repeating the minority view held primarily by one long term campaigner to change policy pages, therefore do not see the need to repeat again what has been said literally hundreds of times before. However for a reality check for other editors I link this. Those page views should tell us that almost no one has heard of this 18 hit a day 1981 TV movie and that readers going there are some of them are misled by us with the current sucker title. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn (reclose)/Endorse was Overturn and relist (uninvolved): The closing statement is lacking for a no-consensus close, see also WP:RMNAC. I am not convinced that a consensus could not be found here. PaleAqua (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    Looking at the RM mentioned below about Murder in Mississippi, I'm not longer convinced that further discussion from a relist might lead to a consensus at least in the near term. PaleAqua (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist These are the type of closing that should have been better left to an Admin. Even though Amkgp is trying to help out in closing RM discussions, this is the types they should have avoided. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move. As in the above case, the arguments made against moving were weak. Calidum 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse or relist. Disregarding the personal views of those in support and opposition, some of which have been repeated above, I don't see how this discussion could be anything other than no consensus. There were three supports and three opposes, with strongly argued policy reasons for not moving the page - in particular the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, which calls for evaluation of common usage as well as long-term significance, and the fact that there are almost zero other "Murder in <location>" articles or redirects, particularly for US states. The nominator dismissed those as valid oppose rationales, but if nobody's ever created such redirects or articles for any state, how can it be simultaneously be argued that readers are being inconvenienced by not having it as a redirect? Ultimately it boils down to the reader convenience clause in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and also WP:CONSISTENCY with other titles which follow the "X in Y" format - e.g. Murder in Mesopotamia, Death in Venice, Love in Canada, Murder in Mississippi etc. If someone wants to relist it because the discussion was still going on then fine, per BD2412's sensible comment above, then go ahead. But there is no way in the world this could be construed as consensus to move as things stood, RMNAC or otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak relist unlike the Novae close above there was clearly evidence and arguments presented to show that the film was primary. As a side note WP:PRIMARYRED doesn't require that an article has actually been created yet and as noted above there are plans to create such articles which may change the outcome anyway but that might be better in a future RM but in any case I'd say a relist would be helpful here, otherwise endorse. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse There is very obviously no consensus in this discussion. The fact that an almost identical discussion is ongoing for Mississippi right now, showing a similar lack of consensus (or even a consensus in the other direction) is telling.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The pretty much identical discussion at Murder in Mississippi has now closed with a strong consensus that it should not be moved. It's now exceedingly clear this close was proper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Again, when a RM has run its course (this one's course was more than 13 days) there is nothing to stop closure even if there is no consensus and even if it has not been relisted. Period. Personally, I'd like to see this one reopened in a few months, because then it might just succeed. For now, the article's title should remain intact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • SEE ALSO: Talk:Murder_in_Mississippi. Same nom. Same arguments. Different closer. Same result. —В²C 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's also a good WP:MV candidate, since the close is faulty. There's no such close as "Page not moved. There was not consensus to move." The non-admin closer was confused. "there was not consensus" = "no consensus", != "not moved" or "consensus not to move". You're correct that they're essentially the same case; both RMs should have been relisted for further discussion since there are solid policy arguments to make and the RMs were not just sitting there with no one interested in commenting in them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    I read that closing statement to mean “page is not moved because there is no consensus to move it”. Seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate. I see no fault. —В²C 17:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    The Mississippi one probably had a stronger reason to move due to the existence of Murder in Mississippi (book) and the similarly named Murder in Mississipi (painting) so the fact that that was closed as consensus against suggests that the consensus might well be correct here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse but relist. Closer did not err in finding no consensus, but with the discussion still active near closing time, it's a good bet that further discussion will lead to a consensus. This is why we relist so many RMs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Manila Metro Rail Transit SystemEdit

Manila Metro Rail Transit System (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I have seen that Amkgp is already mentioned here for an immature closure, so I'll just proceed with this. The closure here by Amkgp is definitely too quick. The last reply to the thread was literally within 48 hours, yet he determined that there was no consensus. HiwilmsTalk 18:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Endorse - once something's been open for a week, closers are within their rights to just close it. If you feel this strongly, re-raise the move request in a few months. Red Slash 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Good close, the correct close, and should not have been left any longer or Relisted, as the half baked proposal wasn’t going anywhere. Do some brainstorming on viable alternatives before launching the next formal RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist since 3 disjoint opinions might turn into something more useful, given time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dicklyon: Exactly. That's what has happened in the RM of Metro Manila metro lines. I think that the main contributors in the article should have been given more time to participate, especially in this pandemic/lockdowns as courtesy. Not everyone's coping well with the situation. HiwilmsTalk 06:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist clearly an important article title requiring more discussion In ictu oculi (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist This type of discussion is what relists are for. The close came too early when the discussion was still getting started. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Per Red Slash. There simply was no consensus here. Because this was closed as no consensus instead of not moved, Hiwilms (or anyone) is free to suggest a new move request pretty much right away, though this discussion here puts that on hold. Calidum 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist There isn't a consensus here, but it seems like a situation that could clearly benefit from further discussion. However, no issue with the close, as it was correct to interpret this as having no consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> While my personal preference is to relist "no consensus" RMs that have not already been relisted at least once, there is nothing to stop this kind of closure. There was definitely no consensus, the discussion was by no means closed early, so this MRV should be procedurally closed. It should never have been opened in the first place for the reasoning, "I have seen that Amkgp is already mentioned here for an immature closure," and in the second place for the reasoning that the closure was "definitely too quick". Trout the nom! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse but also relist, per Paine Ellsworth, et al. The closer was not in error, but consensus is probably reachable with a relisting.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan (closed)Edit

Gráinne Ní MháilleEdit

Gráinne Ní Mháille (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

As far as I know, the page move discussion on Talk:Gráinne Ní Mháille#Requested move 2 July 2020 got an incorrect non-admin closure. The discussion shows no consensus, necessary for a non-admin close. Beside that, the discussion is influenced by canvassing on Twitter.

@Sceptre: already moved the article. The Banner talk 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested Moves has a perpetual backlog and there is nothing that stops experienced editors from closing discussions that don't require administrator intervention. My view of the consensus was that, even discounting the single-purpose accounts and supposed off-wiki canvassing, the strength of the arguments was towards closing it the way I did. Sceptre (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Seems like a good close by Sceptre. In any case, there's no stricture on non-admins closing requested moves: the only criteria is that the closer is an uninvolved editor [who is] in good standing (which I don't think the OP is questioning). Also the procedure for contesting a disputed move request closure is at WP:MVR, and does not, in fact, involve WP:AN all. ——Serial # 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did not know the existence of Wikipedia:Move review. My bad. The Banner talk 11:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse- Was this a WP:BADNAC? Maybe, but probably not. Was it a correct reading of consensus? Maybe, but probably yes. Reyk YO! 10:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • As Mabuska already stated: If you take out the 3 socks or IPs who only have edited in this discussion, the tally is actually 13 for and 9 against. The Banner talk 11:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Discussions are not a vote. I don't see why AN is involved at all, especially as this seems like a well written and contimplated closure. MVR is the location for a move request closure discussion.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The decision is the correct one. Mumbai, not Bombay' Beijing, not Peking; Uluru not Ayer's Rock. The same principle applies to people, and will become more and more common as geography and history books are de-anglicised. There is still an argument for Gráinne Mhaol over Gráinne Ní Mhaille, but either is better than the wrong name, and a name she never went by in life, being used. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment everything above this line was copied from WP:AN, hence any formatting/style/"argument" disparities between how it's "usually done". Primefac (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. (Uninvolved) Per WP:RMNAC, "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." The discussion was a close call, but in the end it was the correct one. The closer thoroughly explained their reasoning and their closing statement is an example others, admin or not, should look to in the future as an example. Calidum 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Calidum: no offence, but I don't use male pronouns. :) Sceptre (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry. I've corrected it. Calidum 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse I read the close reason and thought it made sense. Granted I already supported the move but as best I could I read the reasons given to see if they seemed reasonable and they did. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that you have supporters of the move declaring endorses of it here. It should be uninvolved editors making the decision not editors who are involved.

In any event and regardless of the result of this discussion, whether it be a revert or keep, I started a new discussion on the article title at the article talk page to take into account the glaring problems with the move request that was improperly closed and to try to get a proper definitive result not marred by controversy. If those uninvolved editors adjudicating here feel that Sceptre's close was correct then please read Talk:Gráinne_Ní_Mháille#Proper_Move_Proposals for why it was anything but. Mabuska (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Recording here that Mabuska has attempted to circumvent this discussion on the talk page; I note that WP:FORUMSHOP is policy. Please desist from discussing the same thing in multiple venues; everyone else, watchlist the page and close the discussion as many times as need be. thanks, ——Serial # 13:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I already noted it here before your close and explained what it was for. It was regardless of the result of this discussion as a proper non-controversial result abiding by Wikipedia policy needs to be reached. As it is it stands to highlight the many problems of the move. It sets a dangerous precedent were unsubstantiated opinion and an improper close and move can carry the day ignoring long standing Wikipedia policies. Mabuska (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Interesting opinion! The discussion over the move had started on the talkpage and was in fact still continuing there. Why it is suddenly forum shopping is unclear. Beside that, no one told me, the filer of the complaint, that the discussion had moved from WP:AN to this forum. The Banner talk 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn (Not uninvolved) , per Mabuska's extensive comments. TL;DR: Editors who supported the move did so on the basis of their opinions. Those who opposed did so on the basis of policy. No consensus to move could properly be derived from that. PepperBeast (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. The MOS does not override COMMONNAME. After discounting the support !votes that are are full of Irish nationalism and assertions that 'it's her name' (neither of which have any basis in Wikipedia polcies), what remains of the Support arguments aren't enough to counter the strong basis in polcy presented by the Opposers. IffyChat -- 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved), after reading the RM and then reading the close a second time this seems a very well thought out and purposely well-analyzed close. Compared to the one or two minute closers (all too common and saw one today that seemed wrongly closed) this close hits all the high notes and then explains each one. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Weighing the "establishment" and "accuracy" tests specified by WP:AT §UE and §COMMONNAME, I see no consensus that Grace is sufficiently established in English RS to be considered the common name, and weak consensus that Gráinne is more accurate. While RexxS participated with a comment, not a !vote, I am also considering that a point towards consistency of Gráinne (as used in article titles) and weakly against Grace being well established as equivalent to Gráinne. I'll also note that §CRITERIA specifies that where the choice between two titles (and how well they fulfil the 5 criteria) is not clear, a more local consensus is sufficient. Alpha3031 (tc) 08:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn Any fair reading of the relevant sources makes this outcome not only incorrect but bizarre. If we have any pretensions of being taken seriously as an encyclopedia we should be taking our cue from DIB, DNB or the various books published on the subject. For that reason Gráinne would be a sensible compromise, as long as it was followed in the lede by something like "commonly known as Grace O'Malley". Trying to project madey-up Irish language names onto historical figures for ideological reasons isn't only against several Wikipedia policies it is also "bad craic" to borrow the vernacular. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(good idea, have made this edit after reading your note, don't know if it'll stick though) Just re-read the close and am still looking at it as consensus to move, so a close to move seems within the range of a reasonable decision, which is the topic under discussion here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"Madey-up Irish language names" is, quite simply, ignorance on the scale of "curry my yoghurt". I fear that, in so much as some support of the move came from people supportive of revival of the Irish language, some opposition has clearly come from people opposed to said language revival, which is something that I also had to take into account when making the closure. It's okay to argue, for clear policy based reasons, towards one title or another, but saying that an Irish-language name for a woman from the deepest parts of the Gaeltacht is "madey-up" doesn't really inspire confidence in someone's neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I love how Bring back Daz Sampson thinks the Irish language, the majority language in Ireland until around 1800, and that Gráinne would have spoken, is "madey-up". Eilidhmax (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"Madey-up"? Really? That's pretty low. Reyk YO! 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: I think it is this name that is madey-up, not the language (which is obviously real). Contrary to what has been alleged I have no bias against Gaelic and I am not a backward idiot like Gregory Campbell. Hopefully that has dealt with the straw man and the ad homs. The fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that O'Malley used "Gráinne Ní Mháille" and claims that "it's what she would have wanted" are not only irrelevant and speculative but pretty silly considering she is a pirate queen who has been dead for 400+ years. It is a fantasy. Look, if you want this novel, fringe name to gain wider currency then the correct process is to write a book or article of your own and then hope that eventually a preponderance of quality sources pick up that useage. At the moment - whatever any of us think about it - ALL the sources use Grace (or Gráinne) O'Malley and we have to reflect that. You should not be using Wikipedia to try and push things in a different direction. Even IMOS specifically states: "Where a subject has both an English and an Irish version of their name, use the English version if it is more common among English speakers". If I went to the Joan of Arc article, for example, and tried this nonsense I would be laughed out of town, and rightly so. Following this dubious precedent, our Joan of Arc article should be titled "Jehanne" (no surname). If I tried to argue that the overwhelming majority of quality, English language sources should be trampled over roughshod because "it's what she would have wanted" people would think I was potty! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Whilst your comment was poorly worded and gave the wrong impression, I understand your point. Most likely like most people of the time she most likely could not read or write and would probably not even know whether Grace, Grainne, O'Malley or Ni Mhallie reflected her own name in Gaelic or English unless someone educated her on the matter. And on that if she could write, though most people then couldn't, she may have written her name differently as most people went with how they thought it should be spelt based on pronunciation, hence why contemporary English sources have so many different spellings of her name even in the same document. Indeed her surname if written by someone who knew how to write Irish would have been written as Máille not Mhaille. That is a neologism as it is based on modern Irish, when medieval figures are usually spelt using contemporary Irish. Mabuska (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding to confusion on the matter is use of modern Irish for her name and others as well. Away from tbat speculation and waffle of mine, @Sceptre: has not responded to my post on why their decision was wrong to the point of discrediting Wikipedia and setting a bad precedent. Their closure did not address Wikipedia policy and guidelines but rather set out why they should be ignored based on their opinion rather than actual fact. Mabuska (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Mabuska, neologism is better than 'madey-up' which was not a well chosen phrase. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This is full-on ridonkulous. Grainne was not illiterate. She was a member of the top social class. When she met the Queen of England, the two women conversed in Latin, the language of science, education, and diplomacy at the time, becuae Grainne didn't speak English and Elizabeth didn't speak Irish. That is not a description of an illiterate person. That is a description of a well-educated person. You might as well argue that Elizabeth I was illiterate and didn't know for sure what her own name was. We don't know exactly how Gráinne spelled her name, but the known 16th-century variants of Gráinne in 16th-century Irish documents are basically Gráinne, Grainne, Graine and Gráine. All that aside, even the least-literate people know what their names are, and Grainne's was not Grace. The argument here is about application of Wikipedia common name policy, not baseless speculation over whether a historical person knew what her own name was. PepperBeast (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pepperbeast: Reading and writing are not pre-requisites for learning another language though obviously it greatly helps. Literate Gaelic women medieval/early-modern Ireland were very rare, which means if Grace really could read and write and in more than one language she was incredibly unique for her time adding to her legend, however she is believed to have had scribes pen her letters. Her second husband is also believed to be illiterate and he was in a better position in Gaelic culture to be otherwise. But yes the point is about the application of Wikipedia policy, which was ignored. Mabuska (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the point is none of us know. That's why we should go by what reliable sources say. With apologies to those who want to project romantic ideals onto her, my own guess is that O'Malley would regard this discussion as absurd and would have us all thrown into the sea. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
"Madey-up name" was indeed not a well chosen phrase. Neither was "like most people of the time she most likely could not read or write"... would ye listen to yourselves! What a pile of bias! We're not talking about the British royal family here, whose education was notoriously lacking until recently, but the Gaelic elite. I'd say Gráinne Mhaol's literacy was probably grand. But that's not the issue. Her name is. Neither Gráinne Ní Máille nor Gráinne Mhaol are in any way neologisms, as anyone with any knowledge of the subject would know. That aside - we've had a RM. We're now having a review in the proper place. After the AN/I and your third location to debate this were shut down. We've all contributed - some of us at considerable length - can we now leave it to others to have their say? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bastun: I stand by my comment as it is based on the facts surrounding the medieval/early-modern state of literacy (in regards to reading and writing) in Europe. Anyone with knowledge of the time would know that. My comment was about in general everywhere so there is no bias, so please stop making everything a green versus orange/Gaelic versus British issue as that has nothing to do with this. Also I never started or participated in the AN/I so what are you talking about?If we are to leave it for others to say then why did you come to this place in the first place to place an endorse considering you are an involved editor? I am an involved editor too however did not !vote, though maybe I should. Mabuska (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So you haven't actually read the article you're commenting on, then? Ok... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please stop the continued attempts at ad hominem you have displayed towards me and others throughout this whole issue simply because your view is backed up by nothing but your opinion and not policy. You have made clear here and to others at your talk page that you are strongly biased on the matter. Maybe focus on answering the questions put to you rather than clutching at straws trying to find ways to discount other editors policy backed views. Mabuska (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay but the the two sources you provide here are an undergraduate essay and some sort of theatre troupe on a whimsical RTE show... from 1976. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
1) PepperBeast more than adequately addresses Mabuska's assumtions. 2) My original participation above was at AN/I, not here, and was copied over to here by someone else, not me. 3) I fail to see what a relevance there is in a reference coming from 1976 when we're talking about someone who died 400 years ago, but whatevs; 4) It's RTÉ, not RTE. The fada is important. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the article does include sources that she was contemporarily named "Gráinne Ní Mháille", give or take a síneadh fada; there's a general practice both off- and on-wiki when it comes to non-English orthography to follow common current practice (e.g. Beijing, not Peking). Sceptre (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
You obviously have very trenchant views on the matter and are not above smearing those of us who have differing views as ignorant or prejudiced. That's fine as a participant in the 'cut and thrust' of this sort of contentious issue. I also accept I am probably equally partisan but in the other direction. But then, I didn't !supervote to truncate the discussion. You now have multiple independent editors up in arms. It absolutely screams WP:BADNAC. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
You have literally said her name is "madey-up", despite the use of several variants of it in the contemporary texts and extensive references, so yes, I'd say your self-assessment is accurate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how comparing the use of the síneadh fada to the use of pinyin romanisation makes me "trenchant"? Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Apologies to the closer, who made a very close call, if incorrectly. This article should be titled either Gráinne O'Malley or Grace O'Malley, IMHO. So this difficult decision should be reversed and the RM should probably be relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. The close reads like a supervote, and the discussion clearly did not reach a consensus to move the article. The closer stated that they are ignoring COMMONNAME, but that is the most crucial consideration for an article title. Also, this was a bad non-admin closure; non-admins generally should not handle very close calls like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved). Adding my formal stance on the matter after checking up to see if involved editors are allowed to !vote on it. My (extensive) reasoning as already noted above is given here. Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Just to note that involved endorser Bastun has just posted a notification at the Ireland WikiProject of this discussion on whether this was a correct move or not. If my (then) new discussion at the actual article's talk page (which I notified this place of before you closed it) was determined to be forum shopping, then is this not canvassing? Mabuska (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Why are you asking Serial Number that? And no, it's not canvassing, as it's completely neutrally worded. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Bastun is allowed to post at the noticeboard but they should do so neutrally. They did not do so, and should be cautioned wrt contuing this approach. ——Serial # 15:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think removing one editors comment as it removed yours is proper procedure. Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I re-added the comment, so both comments can be viewed. IffyChat -- 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is canvassing either, although the high-handed instruction to stop using using the article talk page was ridiculous. It has forced some discussion here which would certainly be better placed there. It also looked like an attempt to dominate and control the debate. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
It is canvassing when an Irish editor of a strong de-Anglicising viewpoint posts a notice at the Ireland WikiProject where one would expect to find like minded editors and yet not post to the other four wikiprojects the article in question is a part of. A neutral manner would have been to post to all five projects as they are all equally entitled to a notification Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes I suppose you're right, it would have been optimal for Bastun to notify the others as well. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved) If people who were involved are going to weigh in again, that will clearly stack the !vote. But, in light of opposers reiterating their opinions, I shall have to reiterate my belief that it is the right decision. I have no stick in the fire on the English/Irish debate, I live in Mexico, (though I did once visit Ireland). I came to the discussion from a conversation about colonization and the scientific study of how people are marginalized or consolidate their power by use of names. I repeat what I said there: Commonname says it "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". It does not say it is required. The academic trend is to move away from westernized renaming (Europeanisation) and use native/local naming schemes, which is clearly evident in that newer sources give name variations for this person, which older sources did not. Wikipedia is not a leading trendsetter, but rather follows the change which sources dictate, thus, our own trend in situations such as this is to use pertinent names, Thailand, not Siam; Lola Álvarez Bravo, not Lola Alvarez and certainly not Lola Bravo. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: Just to point out considering your edit summary... it was actually move supporters who came here and started endorsing first. Personally all of us involved editors voicing endorses and overturns should be ignored by the closer of this discussion. Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This is fine as an opinion, which you're obviously entitled to. But in policy terms it boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, with a dollop of WP:IAR insofar as it tries to wish away the overriding importance of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IMOS. It also fails to address the issue at hand, which is the suitability or lack thereof involved in the premature closure by a non-admin who clearly has a strong emotional attachment (or 'skin in the game', to put it another way). I also think place names are something of a faulty analogy because they have 'official' names which get rubber stamped by the United Nations (or whoever) and this then percolates down into the sources. In a way I know where you are coming from. Believe me, I'm on twitter myself and no slouch in the 'woke' stakes; everything else being equal I'd go with the trendy 'anti-colonial' terminology every time. I just think in this particular case we have an excellent corpus of WP:RSs to draw from and they're still pretty much as one. We have to look at the established 'big beasts' of the subject area, guys like your Jonathan Bardons and your Anne Chambers'. I'm afraid the sources would have to take precedence, no matter what our hearts tell us O'Malley would have wanted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Commonname is policy, and it does not state that the English name must be used, as pointed out by the closer. IMOS is a guideline and takes no precedent over other guidelines like Identity. Not sure why you say "my" Bardon or Chambers, as I already stated I wasn't Irish. IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT is not relevant. It did not enter my mind. I reviewed policies on naming and evaluated the close based on the rationale it stated. I totally agree with you Mabuska on the involved/uninvolved comments here. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Normally, I would advise against NACs for very contested/borderline type decisions, however, Sceptre's close was considered, well thought out and well-articulated. They are a very experienced editor. There is no "schoolbook solution" here (otherwise, these threads would be much smaller), however, I am not sure that an admin-closure would produce a higher quality close, and it only suggests that Sceptre should be an admin. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved) A reasonable and well-thought out close by a very experienced former admin.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved) I would like to echo the sentiments of SusunW above regarding a general move away from anglicised names towards those more reflective of the originating culture, and the close was considered. Smirkybec (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment When will de main page of this Wikipedia be corrected? It states: "This Wikipedia is written in English." Seeing this discussion, that seems to be incorrect! The Banner talk 16:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved): While MOS:IMOS NAMES is a strong argument, the strength of the arguments in favor of moving are also strong especially. The closer correctly identified SusunW's argument as strong. MOS:IDENTITY had a lot of discussion with a wide audience behind it. In this case I believe WP:CONLIMITED is an issue for MOS:IMOS NAMES. PaleAqua (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The closer did not clearly err, and most of the debate above is relitigation for reasons to use this name or that one or that other one, not addressing the WP:MV matters. For those convinced the article title is wrong, traditionally we give 6 months of "give it a rest" time before doing another RM on the same article, and that's a good chunk of time in which to try to craft a more persuasive argument. MV doesn't care what evidence or argument you can make now; it cares about whether the consensus then reflected in the original discussion was properly assessed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus <uninvolved>. Completely wrong close. First they concede the current title is the COMMONNAME but dismiss because of Pyotr Tchaikovsky. You know, the most common name used in English to refer to the Russian composer. Second, whole thing is presented as a super vote, not as a reading of the discussion. And as noted above, the opposition was based on policy; support was based on JDLI and invented policy, like “most appropriate name”. What the h? —-В²C 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Out of curiosity to all those who are endorsing on the grounds of Sceptre's reasoning to close, I would like to know how Sceptre's close and SusanW's reasoning (credited as being an important factor) at the move discussion actually took WP:MOSIDENTITY into account when not one source was provided by those backing a move to meet the criteria stated at the policy? It is very perplexing. Mabuska (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn (no consensus). I do not read anything like a clear consensus, and there was no imperative to make a decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

1978 NHL Amateur DraftEdit

1978 NHL Amateur Draft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer has not identified any opposition based in guidelines or sources; just says he doesn't see consensus. I'll expand below. Involved. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Overturn and move (I am the original proposer). See the more extensive discussion about the reasons behind the objections at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS_might_need_revision. Basically, Djsasso interprets this local sports convention as saying to cap all event names, even if sources don't, which is completely contrary to the main MOS:CAPS guideline. No other reasonable objection has been identified by closer after I asked him. One editor 18abruce mentioned that some specialist hockey sources cap it, and claimed that the Britannica Book of Year does, which is not true; but nobody argued that a majority of sources cap it, much less the supermajority of independent reliable sources called for in MOS:CAPS; nor did anyone argue it's something "that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" as WP:NCCAPS suggests. Another editor, Kaiser matias, suggested that it would be better to check usage in contemporary newspapers rather than in books, so I showed him that newspapers never capped it; he didn't come back and retract his opposition after that as he should have. Closer has not said whether he noticed any arguments in opposition that are based in guidelines or sources, after I asked him; he asked back what argument I found not compelling, which I had already discussed there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
From the other discussion, I copy my summary of opposing arguments:
  • 18abruce said some specialist hockey sources cap it; and that the Britannica Book of the Year caps it (which is not true, as far as I can tell, but surely they don't cap entry draft).
  • Djsasso argues, without support in sources, that they are proper names, and that MOS:SPORTCAPS means we should cap names of events even if sources don't.
  • Kaiser matias says "per 18abruce and DJSasso", and then suggests checking old newspapers, not just books. He didn't respond after I showed that newspapers never capped it.
  • GoodDay just says "as we have Year Entry Draft articles." This is not relevant here, and can be fixed after we get beyond this one.
  • Sabbatino simply says "Oppose since this is the correct name for the event. Anyone who will try to change my mind – do not bother."
If there's anything like a good argument in there, I'm not seeing it. These oppose arguments should be given little or no weight, compared to the 6 support arguments based in MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Encourage the closer to speedily expand on their closing statement, before this is locked in to months long review. It was closed with "No consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for the moves proposed. User:BD2412 T 04:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)".
While any "no consensus" close of a contested discussions is defensible, I know this closer as occasionally having too high an expectation on others to see what he sees as "clear".
Closing statements should be sufficiently informative to be understood on casual reading. On this close, I can too easily imagine an inexperienced closer using exactly the same words on the basis of a !vote count. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't need to expand it much. "There is a clear absence of consensus for the moves proposed, and a permissible argument has been made that NHL annual drafts constitute discrete sports events". That is the crux of the issue, and it is subject to the consensus of those discussing the question. The counterargument boils down to Dicklyon's statement in the first exchange, "I don't think the draft was a sporting event". Not thinking that doesn't invalidate opinions or arguments to the contrary. BD2412 T 03:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. And disagreement on whether the names of discrete sports events can be considered proper names? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Endorse, good close. This is a MOS fight in the messy space of proper nouns versus proper noun phrases, aka proper names. Not only was there not a consensus, I think a consensus was definitely not going to develop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse So you are essentially arguing that the closer should have ignored the MOS which indicates capitalize them. And you think other peoples arguments are weak when you really seem to be making an "I don't like what the MOS says so do it my way" argument? Subsections of the MOS expand on the more general advice contained in the guideline. So people arguing that MOS:SPORTSCAPS allows for it have no less weak an argument than anyone arguing about the general MOS:CAPS guidance. If anything they have a stronger one because the subsections are meant to clarify the guideline in specific areas. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> Definitely no consensus, and supporters were unable to overcome the fact that under SPORTSCAPS, names of sporting events such as draft meetings that are held equably each year are proper names and should begin with uppercase letters. These events are exempt from the ever-growing, tsunami-like effort to lowercase everything from Soup to Nuts. These annual events are clearly proper noun phrases. Good call! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I've mentioned before, if @Dicklyon: had wished to open an RM on both the NHL Amateur & Entry Draft articles? I would've been neutral on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume they didn't put the newer version of the name up because that one does have almost exclusive use capitalized which would weaken the argument its not a proper noun. Google. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah hah. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"NHL entry draft" is also often lowercase in sources, but not by such an overwhelming proportion as "amateur draft". See for example the Britannica Book of the Year link I gave above. We can get to that next. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
But "2020 NHL Entry Draft" etc is not. I posted a link above from google news. It is of course just a quick search. But going through the first 40 pages of results there isn't a single use of it with a year with it uncapitalized. The use of the year is what makes the difference, it turns it from a generic phrase into the name of an event. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move, per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS: If sources do not overwhelmingly consistently capitalize something, WP doesn't capitalize it. If in doubt, do not capitalize. It's the same answer for every topic. American football sports isn't magically special and different.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC); revised: 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move—SMcCandlish says exactly what I'd have said. Tony (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hopefully you would have said hockey instead of football though. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Derp. For some reason I thought this was about the NFL, not NHL. Just goes to show that exact topic doesn't matter, the same principle applies.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Non-participant. The close was correct -- there was no consensus -- and this is not the place to re-litigate the initial requested move. The closing admin of this move review should also be aware of potential canvassing by the nominator [1]. Calidum 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move (I commented in support of the move) The evidence presented for the move clearly indicates that the titles are not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" and do not meet the criteria of the general advice per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. The crux appears to be an interpretation of "event" in the context of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. However, this is irrelevant unless one assumes that SPORTSCAPS is an exception to the overarching and ultimate advice of MOS:CAPS (of which it is part). Such a proposition was speculated (ie made without evidence) during the move discussion. Any guideline should be taken as a whole and not read in isolation. The paragraph that follows the one in question commences: The above rules of thumb should also be applied. A rule of thumb, by its very definition, does not override the more rigorous criteria established by MOS:CAPS and is not an exception to same. If there was any doubt as to the meaning, intent or applicability of SPORTSCAPS, the closer should have deferred to the ultimate guidance given by MOS:CAPS. The evidence does not support capitalisation when assessed against the criteria of this ultimate guidance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the consensus in the aforementioned RM, was to leave it as NHL Amateur Draft. I do acknowledge however, that there is indeed an ever growing trend of de-capitalising throughout Wikipedia. Certainly not the first time, I've seen these types of big content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Previously uninvolved. The WP:MOS being complex and filled with caveats and judgment calls, whether these articles should be renamed or not in some ideal world, the close was a correct reading of consensus. CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, this will be closed as endorse, or no consensus. Since the key reason seems to be the misunderstanding at MOS:SPORTCAPS, and since the discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS_might_need_revision indicates a strong consensus to fix it, I've gone ahead and made the suggested edit to clarify that it doesn't mean to cap things not capped in sources. I expect that a new RM will be needed, as this change is too late to affect the previous RM close or review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A change that is going to affect a very large number of articles like that one is going to affect should probably be an RfC and advertised to the various sports projects and not just changed by a couple editors on that talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
In reality the change just codifies the standard practice on Wikipedia -- use caps if reliable sources do so. Calidum 15:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. We cannot have a narrowly topical guideline written and dominated by a wikiproject trying to WP:POLICYFORK from major site-wide guidelines and policies on style and article titles. That's not permissible per WP:CONLEVEL policy, so the language at SPORTCAPS has to be fixed, whether or not Djsasso likes Dicklyon stepping up to do it. The amount of WP:DRAMA this illegitimate forking of advice has caused is already more than enough. And citing the "alternative version" in such disused MoS subpage that virtually no one watchlists wasn't ever legitimate either, and the closer did not take this into account. Let me quote from WP:MOS's own lead: "This primary [MoS] page is supported by further detail pages [like SPORTCAPS] .... If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence. (Emphasis in original.) WP:OFFICIALNAME also militates against the closer giving weight to such arguments as the NHL's own typography.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move (uninvolved): The arguments for moving were stronger. The arguments against mostly were based on MOS:SPORTSCAPS but did not have sources showing that the page title was a proper name. PaleAqua (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to move. This appears to have been nose-counting rather than discussion reading. The most critical question on such an issue is "What do reliable sources say and do about this?". In this case, those proposing the move made a clear case that the majority of reliable sources do not capitalize the title, and that was never refuted or even really challenged. If that's what most sources do, that's what we ought to do too. That was a much stronger argument than any other presented and does not seem to have been weighted accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ArchiveEdit

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


See alsoEdit