Wikipedia:Move review

"WP:MR" redirects here. For move requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves.

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.

Contents

What this process is not

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

Instructions

Initiating move reviews

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 request

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=24 August 2019}}. 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/2019 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 review

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 reviews

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 options

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

 

Active discussions

2019 August

2019 July

Persian people (closed)

Thomas Green (died 1506)

Thomas Green (died 1506) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This RfC suggested moving Sir Thomas Green to Thomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr). The move had originally been proposed as non-controversial, but it had not been addressed there, and a different editor from there decided to convert it to an RfC, becoming the new nom. It progressed for three weeks and was closed by QEDK in favor of a move to Thomas Green (died 1506), a change in target seems to have muddied the interpretation. In summarizing the close, QEDK said There is a consensus against the first proposed requested move. In strict numbers, there is a 4 to 2 for the move to "Thomas Green (died 1506)". Considering one opposer did not voice an opinion on the other title and the other opposer chose to supplement other opposers who supported the title, I'm inclined to move this to the new title.

The problem is that this is not an accurate summary of opinion, not even close. In strict numbers, there were 7 participants, with only 3 in favor of a move and 3 *voting opposed, plus one who expressed an ambiguous opinion, that their analysis of other page names that nothing "need stop this article staying where it is". At best that is 3:3 and at worst 3:4 against. The closer gets their 4:2 count by misconstruing one statement of mine, where I indicated that if the then-current name [Sir Thomas Green] was deemed unacceptable, there were better move targets than the one proposed. That somehow got turned into a *vote in favor of a move in spite of it being in a contribution explicitly labeled Oppose, explicitly predicated with a conditional that it only apply if the existing namespace was unacceptable (the nom incorrectly had claimed that policy mandated a move), and also in spite of me indicating no fewer than four times later in the discussion that there was no good reason for a move. Indeed, I was the most vocal opposer of moving the page, yet the closer has counted me as being in favor. The other two opposers were also incorrectly discounted by the closer. The first is said not to have explicitly express opposition to the newly-proposed alternative target, but their opposition was based on favoring the WP:NATURALness of the existing name, so that would seem to stand against any less elegant alternative. The other was said to have "supplement[ed] other opposers who supported the title", when neither of the the other opposers supported the 'new alternative' title. Thus, a 3:3 split lacking consensus for a move became, in the eyes of a closer, a 4:2 with only weak opposition, predicated on the incorrect (and inconsistent with the discussion) supposition that all three oppose votes only referred to the originally-proposed target, and not to any move, which at least two of the three clearly expressed and the third agreed. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, the closer's basis for counting me in favor of a move is that I was the one who first mentioned the eventual destination namespace. Were I to say, "murder is awful, but when it happens I would hope the murder victims don't suffer too much" that is indeed establishing a ranked preference, but is not to be interpreted as in favor of painless murder, it is simply damage mitigation. I explicitly couched it to indicate that if a move was necessary (the initial proposal had I was anticipating the false claim that the existing namespace was invalid) then there were better targets than the one proposed, while arguing repeatedly (particularly when it became clear that the claim that policy mandated a move was inaccurate) that no move was actually needed. No move>>>>>>>alternative>>proposed is not a preference for the alternative name over no move, as the claimed 4:2 count would imply. 15:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricolae (talk • contribs)

• Overturn move. Agricolae made opposition to the move perfectly perfectly clear in every edit to this discussion, so I don't see how anyone could possible interpret this as support for the request. On the basis of basic English comprehension, which involves an understanding of the word "if", there was no consensus for a move. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. At the very least this is no consensus, but if I were closing I would actually go as far as to declare it "consensus not to move". Several participants stated that the previous name was acceptable, and not prohibited. Furthermore, they noted that the title satisfied WP:NATURALDIS, one of our naming criteria. That makes the policy argument for maintaining the status quo a strong one, and the move was opposed explicitly by two, and implicitly by two others, who pointed out that the existing title was perfectly valid and compliant with policy. Overall, absolutely no basis to close as moved. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (closer) As I have repeatedly explained to my colleague Agricolae, you cannot choose which part of your viewpoint is to be taken when. Simply put, since atleast three other editors voiced their opinion on an alternate page title (as did Agricolae, as a secondary preference), there was no reason for any closer here to not take their alternate viewpoint into account. You cannot express multiple conflicting opinions and expect the same outcome. As I have stressed again and again, if Agricolae was against the move, they should simply have expressed their opinion of being against any move. Given, that they said that if the page is moved, here's a preference, I took that into account, as any sensible closer here. I would also like to contest Phil Bridger coming out of the woodwork as usual to oppose anything I do, it's bordering wikistalking now, but that's an irrelevant matter. Agricolae made opposition to the move perfectly perfectly clear in every edit to this discussion is simply false, given that they also expressed an intent for an alternate page title, albeit secondary, it was still an opinion, which if it wasn't intended to be taken into account, should have been explicitly stated and not used as a straw in an argument after you did not get the outcome you prefer. The 4:2 count is hardly significant as I stated again, if I took PBS' oppose at face value, and the "per opposers" to take into account everyone who opposed the RM (which btw was everyone, including the nom), the latter vote is on a very mixed basis, and would still bring the numbers to 4:2 but this is about consensus, let's not forget that. Agricolae is stating that I have diminished oppose votes and misconstrued their vote, but stating If, for some reason, this is deemed unacceptable, then I would much rather see Thomas Green (d. 1506)... for the explicit purpose of not moving is not possible. I further explained my logic of why there was a consensus in the first place, ...I proceeded to check for any alternative consensus, which I did find, as there were 4 editors explicitly supporting it. And an opposer which did not make a note of it (but I assumed that as an opposition to all moves) while the other remaining opposer (excepting you, because you supported the alternate) stated "per opposers" which would mean that I as a closer, would assess his opinion based on other opposers, which as I already stated was that the consensus was against the first requested move, but a narrow consensus on the alternative "Thomas Green (died 1506)" and thus solidified my decision on the requested move. I would have guessed that would have explained it but evidently not. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would invite User:QEDK to withdraw the allegation against me before it is escalated. I am not stalking anyone, but simply call out bad decisions whoever makes them (if you search through my history you will find that I at least once did the same to Jimbo Wales himself) and happen to have QEDK's talk page watchlisted and saw that that editor followed the same practice that I have seen before in not acknowledging obvious mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying "I Oppose, but if a move must be made then I prefer it to be moved to X rather than Y" is an entirely commonplace !Vote, and it should not be viewed as a vote for moving to X, if there is otherwise no consensus to move. It is Simply saying that if there is a firm consensus amongst other participants that a move is necessary, and no consensus where to, then that user would prefer X. This is fairly basic discussion analysis and I'm surprised that an experienced editor like QEDK is interpreting it differently. If there is some aspect of this I've missed, in what looks a routine no-consensus, then I'll be interested to hear it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly it is a commonplace vote, but discounting Agricolae's vote would sort the matter into a narrow consensus as well, not a no consensus as you put it — which is exactly why I took their vote on the other merit. If you are voting your conflicting solutions, it will definitely result in contradictory results. Revoking one part of your vote in favour of another to meet an outcome you want is unethical at best and literally problematic at worst. Either way, I trust other editors to assess the RM and my replies for themselves and will be agreeable to the outcome of this move review, whatever that may be. G'day. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Yes, but you shouldn't discount Agricolae's vote because they did vote "oppose" as their first choice, and for entirely legitimate reasons. As did others in the discussion. As SmokeyJoe points out below, there might have been a case for a fresh look at the (died 1506) option, but that should be via a fresh RM, (and as a closer you can explicitly give your permission for that fresh RM to be started). Such a close should not be carried out by disregarding oppose !votes already cast. That's not fair, and does not reflect the conversation at hand. As I said above, far from "revoking part of their vote", what Agricolae did is entirely normal practice - to have a primary vote and then still give secondary opinions on what to do if there is consensus against your primary vote. As you're a respected and experienced editor who is considering a run for adminship, I would advise you from my own experience that there is no shame in making a wrong call sometimes, but the smart response to that is to concede the point - a simple change to no consensus and allow a revote, rather than calling those questioning the close "unethical", and accusing others of stalking you. Just IMHO, but I think it's something to think about. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You're getting me wrong here Amakuru, I explicitly said that if the resulting mandate of this discussion is that I am wrong, I will accept that I was wrong, but I'm not the type to back out prematurely from a viewpoint that I imposed on myself, that I thought was the right decision. Now, coming to your statement about me accusing others, you do not have the full picture (and this is not the place to discuss it). I have no qualms with anyone stalking my contributions, I was just getting exhausted with Phil's relentless opposition to everything I do and the fact that their entire interaction with me has never once been positive, despite me explicitly asking them to quit it and bury the hatchet once and for all, but one that Phil ignored, in spirit and in actuality. Again, not something for this discussion. I am not running for adminship and probably will never poll at ORCP anymore fwiw — the feedback at ORCP is (was) valuable for the critique and that is primarily why I did. I am not a great editor and I will not make a great administrator, I'm just a volunteer doing his bit for the encyclopedia, so it's best that you judge me in that accord. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

To Amakuru: here is why I think "closer's discretion" should determine this outcome. Yes, Agricolae's !vote was to oppose this page move; however, Agricolae's rationale (and as closers we pay close attention to arguments in the rationales) was specifically conditional...

If, for some reason, [the previous title] is deemed unacceptable, then I would much rather see Thomas Green (d. 1506) [...]

So the new title, Thomas Green (died 1506), was Agricolae's 1st choice IF the previous title, Sir Thomas Green, "is deemed unacceptable". That previous title was indeed deemed unacceptable, so Agricolae's rationale conditional was indeed met. Rationales mean tons more to closers than mere !votes, as everybody here knows. This closure should be endorsed! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There was very obviously no consensus in the discussion that the previous title was unacceptable, so Agricolae's "if" didn't come into effect. This just comes down to basic comprehension of English, something that both the closer and you seem not to have. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Paine, but therein lies the issue. You say the previous title "was indeed deemed unacceptable", but why? I'm not seeing that at all. PBS's vote quoted from two separate policy/guideline pages, the first of which encouraged naturalness, and the second of which noted that using Sir in the article title is expressly allowed if there is a good reason to do so. Opera hat also commented that although other Sir Thomas Greens did exist, none are notable, hence the previous title is allowable. And although Agricolae did give the secondary vote which has been mentioned, their primary vote also set out in some detail why there is no reason to change the status quo. Closers discretion applies in borderline cases, or if the votes are not clearly expressed in line with policy, but in this case both policy arguments presented, and also the numbers, were against the move, and there is simply no way that such an RM is ever closed as "move".  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It was shown that no policy forbid the existing namespace, or even favored a move, so that left a non-policy-based decision. With 4 supporting the acceptability of the existing namespace vs only 3 arguing for a move, the only way to get a consensus in favor of a move so that the existing namespace would be deemed 'unacceptable' and the 'if' conditional would be justifiably invoked would be to first invoke the same 'if' conditional and thereby shift my !vote from the repeatedly-expressed opposition to a position favoring a move. That is not how conditionals are supposed to work. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Amakuru, the strongest oppose arg was PBS's, which was against moving away from the "Sir..." qualifier. Other opposes were weaker because they included no explicit policy/guideline-based args (although they were implicit, which may or may not hold the swing toward non-endorsement). Then there was the nom's, Roman's, eventual support of the present title, and Necrothesp, who opposed the proposed title and suggested the present title. All this makes the call very close, and I can understand how the closer reached the conclusion that the present title was generally not preferred. So I might have closed with "consensus to move away from the present title and no particular consensus to move to any title" and might have chosen the present title with a "no prejudice" to start an immediate new RM in line with the closing instructions. Suppose my endorsement's a bit weak, however it does swing that way. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  03:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a patently false. I provided policy based arguments here [1] The quoted guidelines discourage use of these honourifics except for disambiguation purposes, and here [2] While the policy on honorifics . . . has several explicit exemptions, including "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady". . . . It does not touch on page names, but its policy of leaving as-is whatever is already present would, if anything, argue against changing a page name over a prenominal.. I did not give a conditional rationale regarding a move. I gave alternative targets were there to be a move, while arguing in a non-conditional manner that I thought no move was necessary, and that a policy-based argument could be made arguing against a move. It is also false to claim that the eventual target was was Agricolae's 1st choice if a move were necessary, as you did earlier - I gave three alternatives, with pluses and minuses for all of them, and I explicitly said of the one later chosen I usually don't like death dates. My preference would probably have been Thomas Green of Green Norton, but I didn't bother to rank them because I never wanted anything but no move, I just considered any of them better than the destination that was the formal proposal on the table when I made the comment, and I did not revisit it later because it never occurred to me that my explicit policy-based arguments and !vote would be completely ignored and my position hijacked to support the opposite of what I had been arguing for two weeks. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may be thinking I didn't make a policy-based argument at the time I !voted. That is true, but the original RfC simply was that someone had proposed it as a non-controversial move, which isn't exactly policy-based itself. When policy-based arguments were finally made by the nom and proposer, I explicitly refuted their application of policy, referring directly to the same policies they did. There is a huge double standard here if their 'somebody wanted it' RfC is counted as policy-based because they later mis-cited policy in support that doesn't really say what they claimed, while I get no credit for policy-based rationale with my 'I like it the way it is' with later policy-based argument favoring 'no move' and demonstration that they were misapplying the policy that they were using as support. As I said explicitly, . . . neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change, but that is not policy-based? Plus I somehow get counted on their side of the consensus? Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct on all counts, Agricolae. I had referred to your initial rationale; however, I'd hoped I was clear when I wrote, "although they (policy/guideline-based args) were implicit...". As closers, we are compelled to consider both explicit and implicit citations of policies and guidelines. I cannot read the closer's mind; however, it appears to me that the closer gleaned a rough consensus to move away from the old title, and a rough consensus to rename to the new title. I endorse because, even though I disagree with the closer and probably would have closed as rough consensus to rename and no consensus as to which name to choose, since the present title had been suggested, I would have chosen it with a citation of the closing instructions that allow for an immediate new RM if the new title is not acceptable. And I still think that the close should be endorsed as "closer's discretion". Looking at the present state of this MRV, I could most definitely be wrong; however, that's my take on it. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  22:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, I think it's fair to say that I did explain my logical conclusion, right? I do not think Paine Ellsworth is any more right or wrong than you are (and as this MRV decidedly draws to a close, it will be decided). @Phil Bridger: I do not mind you complaining, stalking, whatever, quit spewing your bitter vitriol on Wikipedia, it was fine when it was about me, but dragging other editors just because they support my viewpoint is in terrible taste and assuming bad faith at best. Just grow up. @Amakuru:, case in point. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

'Sokay, qedk, and thank you for your words. You might be surprised to know that people have been uncivil to me before both on and off Wikipedia, and about 87% of them turned out to be horses' asses (8% were even worse). So there's a good chance... !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  04:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Being explicitly against something, but also giving advice in case the community decides to go another way is neither unethical nor giving multiple conflicting opinions. It should in no way negate or worse, reverse, my explicit !vote expressed at the same time I indicated that the proposed target was singularly bad among the possibilities that could be chosen were a move deemed necessary. It is well within the realm of ethical behavior to express clear opposition to any move whatsoever, but also indicate that were there to be a move some targets are better than others. Does the community really want to discourage open discussion in this way, by saying that if at any time during a discussion one expresses any opinion on the relative suitability of potential targets their explicit repeated opposition to any move is thereby invalidated? Agricolae (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. <uninvolved> This is a very close call, and I do see the validity in this move review nomination; however, as close as it was (I might have seen it as 3.5:2 rather than as 4:2 and perhaps closed it as no consensus), I see enough reason to support and endorse this RM closure as "closer's discretion". Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn to "Consensus to NOT MOVE to Thomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr)"; then procedurally re-nominate a fresh RM proposing a move to Thomas Green (died 1506).

This is a borderline call. I think it likely that a consensus to move to Thomas Green (died 1506) will be found, but the RM was advertised as something quite different, and well into the discussion it looked like an obvious "Consensus to not move". If I read it correctly, the suggestion to move to Thomas Green (died 1506) came late (on the sixth day), after many participants and potential participants has passed over the listing. Although relisted, the relisting did not advertise the new proposed title. I also note that some opposers did not address the alternative title, and participation was small. I really think many like to avoid these awkward titles alluding to derived notability, and that a fresh proposal for the alternative title would garner more participation.

The closer's inclination to call a rough consensus for the alternative suggestion is a borderline Supervote, is a borderline BADNAC, and is the sort of thing that damages the reputation of the RM process as a well-working consensus-driven process. Others would have closed it differently. There is no rush. A conservative close and a fresh nomination is far less damaging than a creative close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and close as no consensus so that a new, proper move request can go through, and I'm heartbroken because I wonder how WP:RMCI could be made clearer to encompass a situation this complicated. Why not close as no consensus and relist with the new proposed title? I am mostly on board with SmokeyJoe's reasoning. Red Slash 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 June

Mark Jackson

Mark Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The close assigned undue weight with respect to the relevant guideline. The close begins by stating ... the !VOTES are evenly split ..., which is accurate. However, it incorrectly judges that ... the supports' policy-and-guidelines-based reasons tip the balance. The guideline 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 .... In short, it's generally the editors at an RM that determine what are applicable criteria for the given page (barring policy violations, which is not the case here). The !votes used two arguments for the basketball player as the primary topic:

1. Opposers stated that the subject did not have long-term significance
2. Supporters cited the recent page view statistics

The guideline, leaving it up to the !voters to determine the rules to be used, does not give greater weight to either long-term (LT) significance or current page views; it has no preference. In discussing this at the closer's talk page, they stated that The opposes with policy-based reasons were in the minority though. The policy-based grounds were the basis of the decision. However, long-term significance is mentioned at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as one of the major aspects that editors commonly consider (along with usage), and there is no policy or guideline that inherently weakens the argument for LT significance versus page views. Therefore, I see the !vote count as split, and LT signifcance is not in the minority.

Later, closer JHunterJ wrote regarding LT significance that none of the topics met that criterion, so it was not a factor. However, nothing in the guideline says page views gets higher priority if none of the topics are deemed to have LT significance. !Voters could make the decision to only look at page views if no topic is deemed significant, but they did not here. There is no guideline to supersede those !votes here as a non-factor.

The closer later stated that The criterion isn't 'only topics with long term significance can possibly be primary topic.' However, I counter that neither is the criteria "only topics with the largest page views can possibly be primary topic". Again, it's up to the !voters to determine the "criterion" to be used in any given RM, not for the close to judge what was possibly overlooked by !voters or what should subjectively be a non-factor. Rikster2 also argued for "lasting notability" in that talk page thread, which the closer responded: That's not the guideline, though, which is why the supports appeared to reflect the consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse, Yes, the !voters can choose what weighting they give to the 2 primary topic criteria, but so can the closer when offered reasonable arguments on both sides. The existense of policy based supports and opposes does not mandate a no consensus close. If the closer determines that the policy based supports are stronger, and that such a reading is plausible, then closing as moved is well within their discretion (if the supports were weak then I'd have !voted to overturn per the arguments made at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_August#In_My_Feelings). Iffy★Chat -- 09:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Iffy. Can you explain why you believe the policy-based supports are stronger in this case? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that the supports were stronger, just that they weren't weak enough to overturn the RM. If I were to close the RM I'd probably close it as no consensus, but there's enough discretion given to closers to allow the decision made to stand. Iffy★Chat -- 10:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd at least understand (if not agree) if the closer said they made a WP:SUPERVOTE in an even discussion. But they did not state that in the close, instead maintaining on their talk page that LT significance is "not a factor" and "not the guideline".—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Correction: I did not say that "LT significance" is not the guideline. I said "That’s the point, for common names it seems logical that a subject should meet both criteria." is not the guideline. And to clarify, I said that because, well, that's not the guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn. WP:Supervote. The closer’s rationale does not gel with the voting trend. Both sides were making policy-matching !votes, and the discussion lacked discussion on !voters’ rationales with respect to policy support. Essentially, participants were talking past each other. The closer’s opinion “the supports' policy-and-guidelines-based reasons tip the balance” is a new line of argument to the discussion and should have been introduced into the discussion. At the close, I read “no consensus” with no other calling being reasonable, especially noting WP:TITLECHANGES. I recommend resisting for further discussion, converting the closers statement to a !vote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, relist and !vote was offered to the closer as an option on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I was close to saying "rough consensus within admin discretion", but I didn't because "the supports' policy-and-guidelines-based reasons tip the balance" does not reflect the discussion, as no one spoke to another's strength of basis in policy. I think the closer should have !voted this point. Both "support" and "oppose" include stronger and weaker arguments. The fact of the pageviews 85-90% was not disputed, but oppose !voters challenged whether this is determinative. "Page views alone is not a compelling reason" which was not itself countered. "lack of recentism here" Does partially counter, I think. "subject's standing throughout the English-speaking world" speaks to page views possibly being dominated by a very web-active but small audience. "Fails "long-term significance" criteria" goes straight to clear policy based reason to oppose. The rhetorical "Mark who" obviously speaks to the pageviews coming from a niche audience (American basketball). I really think more discussion is needed to call even a rough consensus, because I see the discussion as closed as "no consensus". I also note that the closer's explanation is inadequate, if "the supports' policy-and-guidelines-based reasons tip the balance" is true, it needs an explanation that an ordinary editor can understand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Come on, SmokeyJoe, all of it is fluff. Yes, "page views alone is not a compelling reason...in my opinion" was not countered, but it's nonsense. Yes, in cases where LTS is also a factor favoring another use (they need to be weighed to decide which if either comes out ahead), or when page views are not nearly as dominant as they are in this case (when page views are not so dominantly favoring one use participants need to decide whether there is a PT), then page views alone is not a compelling reason. But this case was not such a case. 85-90% and no other use comes close to claiming LTS? Slam dunk! "Lack of recentism" is a supporting point. Yes, page views are obviously dominated from a certain part of the world, but WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT addresses this: An American might first think of the city in Alabama when Birmingham is mentioned, but primary topic belongs to the city in England, which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often., though that example works in the opposite direction. The point is, what matters are the page views, the likelihood of being sought by those doing the seeking, regardless of where they are or by how much they are concentrated from one area or another. The undisputed fact that the title "fails LTS" is irrelevant - there is no requirement to meet both criteria to be the PT. It's bad enough that we have to work out what to do when the two criteria each indicate a different PT, but in a case where one screams one use and the other favors none, it should be an uncontroversial slam-dunk. That's why everyone opposing the original RM and not endorsing the spot-on close deserves a trout, IMHO. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. (uninvolved) Those in support cited page views as evidence to determine the article was the primary topic, while those opposed simply disagreed with WP:JDLI-like arguments. Thus the close was reasonable. Calidum 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  One !vote simply says Support...Very obvious primary topic, while another wrote Oppose this move, which cancel each other out as I like/I don't like. Otherwise, the remaining opposes refer to its significance. It goes against the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which refers to LT significance, if "objective" page views inherently trump "subjective" views on significance.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Saying something is not a primary topic (or does not meet one of the two criteria) without offering evidence or a policy-based reason is akin to a JDLI argument Calidum 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  What evidence are you looking for in citing the ABSENCE of long-term significance? I have specific examples of the PRESENCE of this in similar discussions at David Robinson and Chris Mullin. As an aside, maybe you should consider a different approach than saying those who didn’t specifically link primarytopic are exhibiting “JDLI” behavior. Maybe I could have written my argument more clearly, but I was specifically looking at primarytopic. One criteria was satisfied, another wasn’t (and no move voter indicated reasons why Jackson met that second criteria). I voted on about five similar discussions the same day and took the same approach to the guideline. I also laid out a deeper argument on the closers talk page requesting he re-open it but it was ignored. Rikster2 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment from closer: the opposers citing guidelines were in the minority, and the guidelines cited by the opposers did not support the claims (that is, the criterion about long-term significance was being used in a logical fallacy: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." does not equate to "A topic cannot be primary for a term unless it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.". There was no WP:SUPERVOTE, just an assessment of the consensus in the discussion and in the guidelines cited (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is a good call. The opposes cited the list of names on the disambiguation page, without providing any reason why any of those entries might vie for primacy with this one. Sure, it's a common name, and there are a few people who have it, but that's not in itself a reason to reject primacy. The page views, coupled with evidence that he's not just a recent flash in the pan, were more than solid enough evidence that he meets one or both criteria for PT and the opposes did not counter this in any way. As an aside, must we really cry "supervote" every time an admin closes a discussion against the headcount? In the old days we used to trust our admins to use the good judgement that the community deemed them to possess at RfA, and interpret the discussion through the lens of Policy and strength of argument. As is suggested by WP:NOTAVOTE. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). No one opposed the nom's claim that the subject in question was getting 90% of the pageviews (one support said it was more like 85%). The opposes argued long-term significance (of what???) or just blatant JDLI ("Mark who?"). I too never heard of this (or any) Mark Jackson, but let's be clear, 85-90% of the people searching with "Mark Johnson" are looking for this one particular article, and the opposition thinks policy supports leaving the dab page there? Preposterous. The oppose votes were given too much weight as I would have dismissed them entirely for being utterly devoid of policy basis. Mentioning long-term significance in a discussion where long-term significance has no relevance is not policy basis. The opposers should all be trouted, as well as anyone not endorsing this close should be. Excellent close JHunterJ. Keep up the good work! --В²C ☎ 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved) per persuasive arguments by Bagumba. There was no consensus for the move and that is what the close should have been — WP:NOCONSENSUS. Unlike the nearly-unanimous vote for moving another commonly-named sports figure, John Higgins (snooker player) → John Higgins, despite the fact that the John Higgins (disambiguation) page lists a total of 27 entries (Talk:John Higgins#Requested move 8 April 2019), there was no such groundswell of support for moving Mark Jackson (basketball) → Mark Jackson and the article should have remained at then-status quo. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think you're conflating local consensus and community consensus. As you know, the role of the closer is not merely to count !votes, but mainly to weight the arguments presented. In this case the opposition had literally nothing based in policy, while support was supported soundly in policy. --В²C ☎ 01:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

By that standard, a single "Support" vote for Mark Jackson becoming the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, against ten "Oppose" votes, would have still been sufficient to make him primary. As for putative "community consensus", unless expressed by a 300-vote margin at a heavily-attended policy-based vote, it may be in the eye of the beholder when primary topic !votes center upon a mid-level retired sports figure known to fans of one sport in one part of the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, if there is just one support in a case where the move is to a title that clearly meets one PT criteria, and clearly no use meets the other criteria, even if there are 100 JDLI opposes, the closer should find community consensus supporting the move. Regarding a topic being known only in one part of the world, as noted below, WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is not a policy-based argument. —В²C ☎ 06:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse this well-reasoned close, and not just because I supported the move. The argument in favour was supported by pageview data demonstrating that the article met the usage criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this was not challenged by anyone. On the other hand, I don't think the argument against adds up to very much. Having not heard of the subject or not being a basketball fan (both of which include me, BTW) smacks of WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. Not being a "household name" or "top-tier celebrity", or having a "common name" are also not based on any guideline, and do not preclude there being a primary topic. It was suggested that pageviews alone were not sufficient and that the subject failed the "long-term significance" criteria, but these comments weren't backed up with anything substantial. Closing this as no concensus would have been lazy, IMHO. If Bagumba felt so strongly about this, perhaps they might have put more effort into their argument while the RM was open? PC78 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  They had no argument based in policy at the RM, nor at the closer's talk page, nor here in the MRV. --В²C ☎ 01:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. PC78 (talk)

  (edit conflict) @PC78: How would you suggest people put "more effort" into arguing long-term significance? It is a subjective opinion, sure, but it's also highlighted in the PRIMARYTOPIC. It was also never rebutted that he has long-term significance, so I'm not sure what more can be done that would not degrade into WP:WABBITSEASON.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I can't answer that question for you, it was your argument and if there was anything to it more than just a vague feeling then you should be able to answer it yourself. As to your second point, it is not necessary for both primary topic criteria to be met, nor should it be necessary to rebut an unsubstantiated argument. PC78 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @PC78: I was asking a general question, not specifically about this RM. I'm at a loss as to how LT significance can ever be argued if the reaction will be that it's only masking "I don't like it."—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure how to answer your question. For me, merely saying something like "Fails long-term significance criteria" is not good enough. How does it fail? Why do you think that? What led you to that conclusion? Can any of the other named topics claim to be equally or more significant? Don't know if that helps. I do agree that it's a rather nebulous concept though. PC78 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  "Fails long-term significance criteria" is not good enough. How does it fail? That is a very good question. For me, that is why more discussion is needed. No one asked it, and no one attempted to answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Except the onus to do so is on those users making that argument during the discussion. It should not be reopened or relisted just because they didn't. PC78 (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I had seen LT significance used in RMs before. Seeing that it was mentioned in PRIMARYTOPIC, I assumed it was a generally accepted "encyclopedic" criteria used on WP. Seeing some of the endorse comments above, it seems that might not be the case.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Often LTS is obvious and unchallenged, like likelihood was obvious and unchallenged in this case. But LTS has never been a requirement for PT; a lack of LTS is not a PT disqualification. Likelihood often trumps LTS even when LTS is a factor, let alone when it isn’t. In this case it wasn’t. ——В²C ☎ 06:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I should add that lack of likelihood also is not a PT disqualification. Both factors are weighed and participants decide how much weight to give to each. However, in a case like this one, where one criteria clearly favors one choice and the other criteria is silent, there should be no debate whatsoever. Situations like this one are supposed to be the uncontroversial slam dunks. --В²C ☎ 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Haha, "slam dunk". I see you. (Great points, too.) Red Slash 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. <uninvolved> Good closure per WP:NOTAVOTE and the first paragraph of WP:RMCI#Determining consensus. Similar to the previous MRV, except in reverse, it's interesting to me that a discussion in last August's MRV was cited by an earlier endorser. That MRV also included two discussions similar to these two. I would have to agree that the closure of this RM was within the realm of admin discretion/closer discretion. For those who decry "supervote", you are invited to read or re-read WP:SUPERVOTE, which this closure was not. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) I agree with Paine Ellsworth above: this was a good close, done by the book. Reviewing the !votes myself, I see four support !votes (including the nominator) based on PRIMARYTOPIC#1 using relative page view percentages as their criterion, and one support !vote with no policy-based argument. On the oppose side, there's really only one policy-based argument at all, stating that the page in question doesn't meet PRIMARYTOPIC#2, but a) doesn't give any supporting evidence, and b) does not address any of the assertions about PRIMARYTOPIC#1. I have to agree that the rest of the oppose !votes are essentially a version of WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT (not a household name, not a top-tier celebrity, Mark who?). There was one weak refutation of PRIMARYTOPIC#1 (page views alone is not a compelling reason), but no indication of why they believe this is so, or suggestion of some alternate method of analysis. To me this is important, because PRIMARYTOPIC itself suggests that Wikipedia article traffic statistics are a factor that can be used to help determine primary topics (caveated, of course).
  So this leaves us with four arguments in favor, using PRIMARYTOPIC#1 with at least some supporting statistics, and one argument in opposition using PRIMARYTOPIC#2 but with no supporting evidence or even a line of reasoning. While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, I do not read this to mean that both factors listed are mandatory, and that failing one automatically disqualifies a subject from being considered a primary topic. Nor is it saying that these are the only two factors that can be considered; these are just two common ones. The other important thing to note is that consensus can change: I get the feeling that most of the oppose !votes are mostly concerned that given the commonness of the name Mark Jackson, we shouldn't be anointing Mark Jackson the basketball player because another super-famous Mark Jackson might come along. If and when that happens, we can always revisit this decision. But as it stands, this was the right call. CThomas³ (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) Discussion looked like no-consensus, with policy arguments supporting both sides using different parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Page views vs long term significance. I do not see where either side properly countered the other. From that guideline "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic." This clearly gives room here for local consensus or lack of it which appears to be the case here. PaleAqua (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong endorse (as uninvolved). No one made a reasonable policy-based and supported appeal to any policy in opposition. No one. No one. Page views are *a* good reason for primacy; in order to not move the page, then, a convincing and affirmative appeal to the second criterion of primary topic would be required. And none was effectively made. They blindly asserted a lack of educational significance. That's not good enough. Five stars, closer Red Slash 17:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) – A consensus should be required for a primarytopic takeover; there is clearly no consensus here (and closer did not claim there was). The whole case was based on pageview counts, and the opposition was based on other criteria that were just as valid but were effectively ignored. When primarytopic criteria are in opposition, picking one above "no primary topic" without consensus should be an exceptional event, not one done at closer's whim. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear: I did indicate there was consensus for the change to a primary topic based on the the commenters who reflected the even broader consensus in the the WP policies and guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX

Boeing 737 MAX (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

• Requested move discussion — 11 March 2019
• Requested move discussion — 25 May 2019

First, I'd like to point out the close is based on a simple head count rather than the strength of the arguments. This is disallowed because Wikipedia is not a democracy and because WP:CONSENSUS definitively says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Second, the closer falsely relies on WP:RMCI, describing it as a policy when it is merely an instruction page. Even if its subsection WP:THREEOUTCOMES were policy, this move request was filed about one week too early. Thirdly, I believe the closer has crossed the line into WP:INVOLVED and/or WP:TOOLMISUSE territory because they closed the previous move attempt that took place in March and then summarily closed the move discussion in question here [3] after only a few days though it was reverted [4] by another editor more familiar with the requested move process. Given that, I don't believe the closer acted in a non-neutral manner.
Moving to the discussion itself, most of the opposition gave one or two reasons to support their comments, neither of which is valid. First, they said the official name (MAX instead of Max) should be used. This is contradictory to two parts of our policy on article titles, WP:UCRN "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" and WP:TITLETM "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". The other major reason to oppose was "we already discussed this," which fails to recognize consensus can change.
Edit: For those who think move requests are always closed based on the number of support/opposition, please see Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_19#Requested_move_7 where 70 percent of users favored a move yet there was deemed to be no consensus. This just underscores that consensus is not based on vote totals. Calidum 21:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Calidum, perhaps that's not the best example, as it was arguably one of the worst RM decisions in the history of WP, and was thankfully eventually corrected. That said, the problem there wasn't that the closers went against the majority, but that they underweighed the significance of CONCISE as a tie-breaker in a situation where indeed COMMONNAME was well argued to be a wash, using a poor excuse to do so: giving HRC more COMMONNAME weight because of supposedly more usage in "scholarly secondary works", even though even fewer opposers mentioned that than supporters mentioned CONCISE which they discounted because of how few mentioned it. Yes, a digression, but relevant here as a reminder of what another bad decision looks like. --В²C ☎ 16:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse, the close does not appear to have been based on a head count. Both sides gave good reasons for why the article should/should not be moved, and while some of the opposing points may have seemed invalid to you, they didn't seem invalid to a majority of the users involved, including me. As for WP:CCC, consensus rarely changes in just six weeks. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Debated: It is hard to argue the close is not "based on a head count": "The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move." (Closing comment).

"Both sides gave good reasons" has been debated, and an evidence-based argument was given that most of the opposing !votes are unsound.

"they didn't seem invalid to a majority of the users": Wikipedia is not a vote. It's pointed out with evidence that there are many misunderstandings of policy in the opposing !votes, therefore WP:NHC (and WP:RMCI) gives no weight to these arguments: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn (revert close for another). It is not OK to close two contested RMs on the same page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by “revert close for another”? Relist so another closer can close? —В²C ☎ 06:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to what other readings you think are possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The closing of the repeated RM by the same admin was non-ideal, it should not be done. I see the closer actually closed three times. The repeat RM at just over two months is in my opinion OK. It has been frequently asserted, in many places, that renomination after a "no consensus" should wait at least two months, although some argue six months, with only a very small number (the verbose types) arguing no such restriction is hard written into policy. User:Paine_Ellsworth's revert, a non-admin reverting an admin close, is the most egregious thing I see. Non-admins should not be making controversial administrative actions, and reverting an admin's close is pretty extreme, the action was worthy of chastisement at ANI. If you think you hold this level of respect, get yourself credentialled at RfA. There is a lot of re-arguing the RM going on in this MRV. If MRV had clerks, they would be removing it. I think the "no consensus" close was right, anything else would have been an extreme stretch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you're scaring me, Joe, because there is no way I would take another editor to ANI just because they went against a suggestion in the closing instructions. I had no idea you had such strong opinions about how admins can do no wrong. Honestly, at the time I reverted the close, I didn't even know Fuzheado was an admin. Just another editor doing something wrong that needed to be righted. Here is the closing statement for the close I reverted:

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Procedural close. The most recent extensive RM discussion about this exact issue was just 11 weeks ago. With no new insights into the matter, I am closing this request. The proposer Calidum was a participant in the discussion from 2019-03-11 so it is disappointing that the user knowingly proposed this so soon afterwards and did not even acknowledge the previous discussion which was closed (by me) as no consensus. Fuzheado | Talk 17:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Note the date, a close of a perfectly legal and valid RM that had been begun at 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC). So you tell me, what's wrong with this picture? Me reverting the close? Doubtful. While the vast majority of admins are helpful and completely trusted, every once in a blue moon, I have to say to myself, "An admin should know better." Aaaand, I still disagree with you about this particular close under discussion here – this RM shows a clear consensus to move the pages, because few if any oppose rationales rebutted the policies and guidelines on the support side. The close should be overturned and the pages moved. I suppose you think a trip to ANI is warranted for voicing that opinion, too? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with a close, the first thing to do is to talk to the closer about it. Reverting their close is definitely worse that going straight to MRV without talking to them. Reverting an admin close is an ANI matter. Likely, either you are being disruptive, or the admin is off the rails. There may have been a mistake, but using a revert to fix a mistakes is not collegial, there are better options starting with usertalk. Voicing opinion is not chastisement-worthy, voicing opinion with signed posts is what you are supposed to do. Reverting a close based on an opinion is much more serious. Arguably, you were right, but the place for that argument is the closers' talk page or MRV. Normally, you are very sensible, but sometimes, such as when you say "this RM shows a clear consensus to move the pages", you are not. There was no "clear" consensus for sure. If it were clear, you would not need the "because" and following words. To my reading, your words following your "because" would have been a WP:Supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with a close, the first thing to do is to talk to the closer about it.

I agree with this as it applies to most closes, normal closes. The out-of-process close that I reverted was anything but normal and had to be dealt with immediately. As for the rest, I still don't understand your reasoning, and we clearly disagree at best. Well, it's not the first time, is it. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to resolve any of these reasoning disagreements, how about starting with the meaning of "clear" in "clear consensus". I would define a clear consensus as a consensus that all reasonable people can see. It then follows that if reasonable people disagree about the consensus, then it is not "clear". What is your definition of "clear"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I seriously doubt resolution will be so easily come by, especially considering that my definition of "clear" as it applies to "consensus" has already been given and you thought nothing more of it than a "supervote". Perhaps the community consensus that derived the closing instructions':

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating 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.

should be ignored in this case? The closer of this RM most certainly ignored this instruction. The oppose rationales had little or no weight due them, whereas the support args had the weight of community consensus to support them. Don't see how that can be denied by any reasonable person. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A consensus that requires an explanation of its determination is in the direction of a rough consensus. A clear consensus needs no judging or determination. It is clear, for all to see, no processing, no lenses just plain eyes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right about the rough consensus part in this case, but it was still a consensus based upon community consensuses found in the policy and MOS guideline cited consistently in that RM by supporters, and which were never rigorously rebutted by opposers. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  18:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘

I confess I have always struggled with this. If the closer takes that guidance to mean "decide who has the right of it" and closes accordingly they run foul of WP:SUPERVOTE. How can an arbitrator conclude in favour of either position without that happening? But that is beside the point here, as the case is no consensus for either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely a cause for disagreement and is why MRV exists. It is the job of the closer not just to count !votes, but also to assess the weight of each argument from each side. If one side has little or no weight behind them, weight provided by community consensus that derives policies and guidelines, and the other side does have such weight behind them, then the numbers cease to matter. The side with the weight of community consensus behind them is the only local consensus that should command the closer's attention and the result of the requested move. And how this is worded in the closing statement is a very delicate matter, and yes, it is sometimes construed as a "supervote". In this case, consensus was found in the weight of the supporters' rationales, which had community consensus of policy and the MOS behind them. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No, consensus for that was not found. The discussion resulted in no consensus, as did the previous one on the identical topic. I respect you a lot, Paine, you do a lot of hard work in the RM arena, but please just accept, as SmokeyJoe says, that reopening a procedural close by a closing admin was not acceptable. This RM should not have been re-run so soon on the same arguemnts, and when it was, it (unsurprisingly) resulted in the same result of no consensus. The thing to do is to leave it alone for six months and then if you think there's solid evidence for a fresh attempt, come back preferably with some new evidence that may find consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting the way you worded that, Amakuru. You suggest that I accept the unacceptable, to accept that reopening an out-of-process procedural close is unacceptable. You ask me to ignore what the closer chose to ignore: that there is no community consensus to support such a "procedural close", and that the editor who opened the RM in question had every right to do so? You ask me to ignore the fact that none of the oppose rationales cited any appropriate policies or guidelines? And that many support rationales did cite appropriate policies and guidelines? You ask me to ignore the community consensus that resulted in the closing instructions, parts of which I've quoted in this discussion? Thank you for your respect, and it is heartily returned. And I respect Joe a lot, too. And yet if to accept what you want me to accept means to ignore all the above, then I shall have to risk losing your respect, because I cannot ignore community consensus, nor do I see how anyone else can, not without very good reason. And no good reason to ignore community consensus has been given, not by Joe, not by the closer, not by the opposers in that RM, not by you – no good reason whatsoever! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  13:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and move as proposed <uninvolved>, per nom. The opposition seems entirely based on fluff: it’s the official name as used by Boeing, the FAA and a few sources, and “too soon”. None of this is policy based. The support on the other hand is clearly based on TITLETM and COMMONNAME. Some of the opposition claims basis on OFFICIAL, and COMMONNAME, but I don’t see the connection, and it’s not explained. A few opposers claim TITLETM does not apply, but again the explanation for why doesn’t make sense. Once you dismiss !votes based on lack of policy basis, all that remains is strong support. And yes, same closer closing is not appropriate. —В²C ☎ 06:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NCAIRCRAFT to see how aircraft articles are named. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should know that a move review is where we review a particular RM discussion and its close, not expand on arguments made in that discussion. NCAIRCRAFT was not cited in the discussion that was closed and under review. —В²C ☎ 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see it was cited by the 10th opposer, but no explanation for how it favors MAX over Max. More fluff. —В²C ☎ 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A quote from the guideline:

"Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names, (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed) for example. If the type has multiple names then either use the most common or none if this would cause confusion."

737 MAX is the only official name given to the aircraft by Boeing. While some argue that it is marketing, the aircraft's FAA certification confirms that this is not the case. I believe that 737 Max is a nickname given to the aircraft by people without knowledge of its real name. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Max is not a nickname. It's standard English formatting per TITLETM that takes precendent as part of a policy Calidum 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Max is not an English word, but rather an abbreviation for maximum. MAX is both the trademarked and official name, and therefore its official status trumps its trademarked status in this case. Airbus A350 XWB is trademarked, yet as XWB is its official name, the title is all caps? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ZLEA, languages evolve. In English, "max" almost certainly started as an abbreviation, but now it is a standard English word. Look it up. While MAX is both trademarked and official, why do you think official status trumps trademarked status? More to the point, why should we ignore WP:OFFICIAL (common names are generally preferred over official names) and WP:TITLETM (Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources) guidance in this case? Ignore this guidance in favor of what guidance, exactly? --В²C ☎ 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

NCAIRCRAFT calls for the official name, and if an aircraft's name contains a capital letter, that's how the official name is written. This is general knowledge within the aviation community. If this wasn't the case, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article would be named Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-15 even though MiG is the manufacturer's designation. Another example that I already mentioned is the Airbus A320neo family, A320neo is trademarked by Airbus, and according to your argument it should be named A320 Neo or something similar. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, according to my argument (aka WP:TITLETM) A320neo is fine, because that stylization dominates in reliable source usage, including the NY Times. [5]. MiG might deserve another look, because MIG-15 seems to be the common name, but that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether Max doesn't meet the "name" guidance in NCAIRCRAFT may have been a relevant point; but nobody raised it at the RM so it's moot here.--В²C ☎ 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle: it's interesting that you advise a close against the numbers in this instance, yet here, where policy arguments and evidence in support were IMHO clearly stronger than those in opposition, you closed as no consensus. I personally think the applicability of policy to the case to move is less clear here than it was in the other one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn. <uninvolved> Articles should have been renamed. This close appears to be a supervote. (Upon re-reading, I suggest that rather than being a supervote, the close was just out-of-process because the same admin closed the previous RM, a minor point of contention.) The RMCI closing instructions suggest 3 months wait after a no consensus outcome because the longer the wait, the greater the liklihood of success. There has never been a community consensus that dictated nor even settled upon any given exact (or inexact) time limit for such a waiting period. Only two or three opposing rationales appear to be valid and based upon policies and guidelines, and even they are questionable, whereas the nomination and support rationales are policy- and guideline-based. Had I closed this, the article titles would have been moved to "Max" and away from "MAX". Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  06:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to clear the air if possible regarding my "uninvolvement" in this RM. I was uninvolved in the RM itself because, like the closer, I claim no preference either way, Max or MAX, it makes no difference to me. Outside of that, it was I who reverted what I had deemed an out-of-process close about two days after the nom had opened this RM. After the fact, I found out that the closer had been pretty much a Wikipedia pioneer and had been editing for a very long time, much longer than I have. And the closer has been an admin for a very long time as well. These facts mean that the closer is well-deserved of the respect that being a helpful admin for that long of time should demand. And even though at the time I reopened the RM, I had had no previous discussions with the closer and did not know the closer at all, my reopening of that RM was not out of disrespect for the closer, but merely a disagreement with the action of the early closure itself. I think it speaks volumes about the closer's sufferance and ability to acquiesce by allowing the reopened RM to continue without challenge for the full seven days, and I admire and thank the closer for that. I want it to be known clearly that the closer and I merely disagree in this case in regard to the decision made, and that I still have a great deal of respect for the closer's background on Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). This discussion was closed then reopened. Besides the previous discussion referred to by several opposers, there was an even earlier informal discussion too. All four times we have seen the same result. As an uninvolved editor I see two significant opposition arguments. First, that the capitalization is the proper name and therefore an exception to the Title Case guideline. Secondly the MOS is just that, a guideline not a policy, and common sense says to capitalize. I saw no valid policy-based arguments to trump that, just a lot of wikilawyering. As an editor uninvolved in those previous discussions I am not judging the truth here, but I do believe that the opposition arguments are far from trivial and a "no consensus" close is unarguable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Proper names have only the first letter capitalized, as in "Steelpillow" or "Paine Ellsworth". Being a "proper name" does not entail capitalizing all three letters as in "MAX". If that's a proper name, then it should be "Max". While the MOS is indeed a guideline, it still represents a strong community consensus and therefore should not be ignored unless there is very good reason. Your "wikilawyering" comment might be considered disruptive by some, so for balance, it appears to me that the opposition rationales were "full of it". The close did not take any of that into consideration, but instead went by the !vote count as if Wikipedia were a democracy. And that policy represents an even stronger community consensus! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  08:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    The key question is, do we assess this case procedurally on the stated reasons for closure or on the ultimate validity of the conclusion reached? You have good arguments on your side, so do the opposition. That makes it no consensus in anybody's book. I see little point in overturning on a point of procedure, only for it to be reinstated for a fifth time with a revised summing-up. (Oh, and perhaps you should put WP:WIKILAWYERING up for AfD if you find my assessment disruptive. In riposte, I would hate to think that you are trying to WP:BULLY me. Let's stay on-topic here.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    Steelpillow, you seem to be making the same error as the closer. You say the opposition has good arguments, but you identified two, and Paine Ellsworth dispensed with the first (it being a proper name supports Max not MAX). That leaves “common sense says to capitalize [all three letters]”, and that trumps MOS/TITLETM. But if “common sense” said that, then this would be reflected in more sources. But it’s not (see tons of counter-examples in nom and discussion), so “common sense says to capitalize” is just a baseless opinion, not a good argument. I just don’t see any good policy-based opposing arguments in the discussion. Certainly not the two you identified. —В²C ☎ 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    Others disagree. I am not convinced by them any more than I am convinced by you, however often you repeat yourselves. That's what "no consensus" is all about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    But you don’t seem to be convinced by simple facts either. Simple facts like “proper names starts with capital letters; they are not written in all caps”, and “we determine common sense usage on WP by looking at usage in reliable sources”. Do you disagree with these these facts? Do you disagree that the equally simple fact that they refute the two supposedly good arguments you put forward? What exactly do you disagree with? The inability of the opposers to articulate arguments based on policy is why I said the opposition is all fluff. You’re making my point. —В²C ☎ 16:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    Since you ask, and for that reason only: there is a distinction between proper nouns and proper names which appears to have passed you by. It provides a perfect example of what I disagree with; your conviction that your arguments are watertight. I will not be responding to any more such questions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

    So now you divert due to a trivial point, irrelevant to our discussion. Yes there is a distinction but it does not apply here since Max is one word. I’ve changed it anyway, and my point stands, as does Paine Ellsworth’s original point. Unaddressed, much less refuted. Why should we think your refusal to explain further is anything other than not having an explanation? —В²C ☎ 22:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Debated: "First, that the capitalization is the proper name and therefore an exception to the Title Case guideline." (endorse by Steelpillow) Seems to misunderstand WP:TITLETM that has an exemption for WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:PROPERNAME. WP:NHC (and WP:RMCI) gives no weight to this argument by some of the following categories: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, [...], those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (as an uninvolved party). Firstly, I think it is poor form to re-present an RM with basically the same arguments so soon after a previous close. I therefore WP:TROUT Paine Ellsworth for reopening after the initial procedural close, because it's established practice to wait a number of months, preferably six, before trying again - even for a no-consensus close, if the proposal is the identical one. It's not fair on people who participated and gave their time in the initial discussion to make them go through it all again like that. And the closer rightly noted this in their close. On the issue itself, this is a classic case of that vague area between clear WP:COMMONNAME for styling (which happens when a substantial majority of sources use a non-MOS style, for example k.d. lang and Spider-Man: Far From Home) and a 50:50 scenario in which we clearly use our MOS. Borderline cases like this cannot be decided by deferring to the MOS, they must always be decided by arguments in the discussion and, if it comes down to is, even a headcount. Because neither side is right or wrong here. A majority of sources, perhaps even a substantial majority, call it "MAX". Equally, the MOS says to use "Max". So ultimately "no consensus" is absolutely the right answer and I suggest a moratorium of one year on future RMs for this subject. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to suggest that the requester of this RM was out of line/process by reopening the discussion nearly 3 months after a no-consensus decision. Everything that is written in the closing instructions suggests only that the longer you wait, the more likely you'll be successful. There are no hard and fast lines that require any sort of moratorium for any reason. You say six months, others say two months, and we've both seen (and done) RMs almost immediately after a previous RM, so the high horse bucks you off, friend Amakuru. As to the closing issue, it is never a headcount, so your entire good-sounding argument loses ground. This is definitely a classic case – a classic case where none of the oppose args come anywhere close to the support args, a classic case where these pages should have been renamed against the numerical majority. It's happened to us, and it is happening now to the RM closer. These pages should be moved. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Debated: "On the issue itself, this is a classic case of that vague area between clear WP:COMMONNAME for styling (which happens when a substantial majority of sources use a non-MOS style" (endorse by Amakuru): ignores the WP:TITLETM policy referred by (5/8) supporting !votes, that gives a clear reason for the rename to "Boeing 737 Max" (title case). WP:COMMONNAME also cannot be clearly applied, roughly the same number of WP:IRSs use both "Max" and "MAX" commonly (evidence) WP:NHC (and WP:RMCI) gives no weight to this argument: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, [...], and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment/response from the closer. One can certainly see the passion for a desired outcome by Calidum, but the assumption of bad faith is disappointing. Even more disappointing is the inconsistent cherry picking of guidelines interpreted one way as ironclad and ignoring many others that are inconvenient. To be clear: I have no strong views on the renaming issue and was uninvolved when I arrived to help close the first March 11 RM. At the time, the summary by Marc Lacoste said: "Right now I count similar forces in both camps. (52 oppose, 40 support)" and EoRdE6 concurring: "There's clearly no consensus right now for a move." I read over the arguments on both sides, and there was guideline support for both views. I closed it as "No consensus" as any reasonable admin would. It was not just a rough 50/50 split, but valid rationales were given for both views. With that, I had hoped editors would spend their energies on productive article writing.

When the second May 25 listing occurred so quickly after the previous close, I looked closely to see if Calidum had brought up new points or criteria that changed the nature of the discussion. Since the new request was simply quoting "Per WP:TITLETM," this appeared to be nothing more than re-playing the previous debate from less than 3 months ago. Folks were already noting, "this was only discussed a few months ago" and, "Endless nonsense move requests, can never satisfy them" and, "Why are we going over this AGAIN" The RM closing instructions page says, "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one. An exception is when the no-consensus RM discussion suggested a clear new course of RM action." There was no suggested clear new course of RM action and there was no new course proposed. Also, since there was no move review filed from the March 11, there was no indication there was a problem with the close procedure or rationale.

Using WP:COMMONSENSE, I closed the RM early in an attempt to help defuse the situation and save the time and labor of another discussion with no good rationale. In conversation, this is where I questioned Calidum whether this was a good faith move [6]. Paine_Ellsworth reverted my close which I thought was not useful, but I accepted it. My only small regret was not leaving a longer explanation of the early close in order to convince folks why it was closed early. If people feel replaying this debate for another 7 days is worth their time, then that is their prerogative. I did my best to try to save them from it.

Fast forward to 7 days after the May 25 request was opened and to the surprise of very few, the result was the same. Actually it was even more pronounced. Whereas the previous !vote showed 57% opposing, this one had 70% opposing which would make it quite unprecedented to turn into a "move." Despite the assume-bad-faith portrayals of Calidum and others, this was not a straight "vote count" – the policy of "demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark" in WP:TITLETM cannot simply be interpreted as generic Google Search or a simple text match. "Common" can be reasonably and appropriately interpreted as taking into account the domain of knowledge (aircraft and aviation) and the trade/industrial/specialized press being the most familiar with proper usage, yet still independent of Boeing as the originator of the trademarked term. The same way that straight "counting" votes here is fraught with problems, straight counting of generic Google Search results is problematic since the general news domain has syndication and duplication galore, giving one a false impression that tallying the use of a term in a news search is correlated with authority or correctness. (As a journalism professor for more than a decade, the flaws in general press reporting is a dynamic I am very familiar with and have written about and commented on in many media outlets.)

As for the WP:INVOLVED accusation, it's an advisory that is being portrayed as a prohibition. The actual text of Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Conflicts_of_interest says, "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request." This is a soft advisory at best. However, somehow the guideline describing relisting as after 3 months can be ignored without consequence.

In my 15+ years as a Wikipedia admin, I have seen a lot and been involved with lots of contentious issues. I have never seen a situation where a clear majority of more than 2/3 of legitimate users in good standing (ie. a discussion free of sock-puppets or anon IPs) and with valid points is outright contradicted by a close. At best, this could only have been closed as "No consensus." That's what I did. Both times. I did not think I had to state this as it was so obvious, so let me state it again for those who still find it hard to understand. TL;DR - There is clearly no consensus to move not just because of the numbers but also because of the legitimacy of the arguments and the standing and experience of the editors. I find it hard to believe any English Wikipedia administrator of good reputation would ever see this !vote with 70% opposing and its relevant arguments and close the RM with "Move" as the result. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that the opposers had “legitimacy” in their arguments does not make it so. The nom cited my go-to reference for English usage, The NY Times, and many others, as using “Max”. That’s plenty to follow the MOS guidance consistent with that usage. The opposers did not refute this. They didn’t even articulate the cogent argument Amakuru presented above, nor anything based on NCAIRCRAFT. Just what exactly was this legitimate opposing argument presented in the discussion, because I honestly don’t see it. Maybe I missed it but I’ve gone over it three or four times now and I’m seeing nothing there. So help us out. What legitimacy did you see? —В²C ☎ 16:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that NCAIRCRAFT was never mentioned in the discussion in question, it seems clear to me the intent of that guideline is to use the official name instead of a common nickname. That doesn't have anything to do with the styling of the name. The closer's comments above regarding TITLETM are also concerning and push the close into WP:SUPERVOTE territory. Calidum 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Not for anything, but NCAIRCRAFT was raised by the 10th opposer in the RM, and yet when I read it, I saw it as a very weak argument. There is nothing in that guideline that goes against the MOS. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that as I had searched for NCAIRCRAFT literally. Nevertheless, yeah, it’s unclear what if anything there favors MAX over Max. The opposers certainly did not explain that. So, again, nothing but fluff. —В²C ☎ 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure! The only other policy cited by an opposer was WP:IAR, and that speaks volumes about how this RM should have gone. There was no very good reason given for ignoring the article titles policy or the MOS. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of balance I think it useful to present the positive case for WP:NCAIRCRAFT here. As a lifetime aviation enthusiast, when I read NPAIRCRAFT I see a very clear naming convention with straightforward guidance on the awkward cases. Perhaps the confusion in the immediately preceding comments is due to ignorance of things aeronautical, it is hard to make sense of them otherwise. The style guide grants enough leeway on borderline cases to make local decisions by consensus and NCAIRCRAFT is such a local consensus of long standing. That at least is a case for the status quo. The fact that the involved denizens of the aviation wikiproject could have been more articulate in these discussions is utterly beside the point, once one of them had the good sense to mention it. Having stated the case at last, the fundamental issue over the move request can be seen as whether or not that long-established project consensus should be overturned or, more charitably, micro-managed. As Fuzheado justifiably points out, no consensus emerged either way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, Steelpillow, to this very moment, including what you just said, and what Fuzheado said above, and most importantly no one in the RM discussion being reviewed, has explained how NCAIRCRAFT favors MAX over Max. I mean, no one has even done the basics, which would be to point out that MAX/Max is the "NAME" part of the aircraft, and NCAIRCRAFT says to use the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military for the NAME part. And there is no disagreement that that is MAX (from Boeing); not Max. If anyone had argued that, then maybe it could be considered a point about which there was no consensus. But since it wasn't even raised, we have no idea. It's just not part of the discussion. Not to mention that if it had been raised, someone would have pointed out that either Max or MAX satisfies the NCAIRCRAFT requirement, and that the case (UPPER or Mixed) is just a matter of style subject to MoS guidance, as Calidum did above. So considering this point simply because one person in the RM cited NCAIRCRAFT without explanation is totally outside the scope of this review, just as it was outside of the scope of the close to consider. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Since a couple of other editors started discussing NCAIRCRAFT here, they presumably thought it relevant to do so. Since you do not think it relevant, I cannot understand why you raise your concerns with me and not with them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

NCAIRCRAFT favors MAX as its FAA type certificate (along with just about every other agency's type certificate) says 737 MAX. Official names are case sensitive, as can be seen with Airbus A350 XWB and Airbus A320neo family. Forget the fact that MAX is trademarked, it's official, that's what counts. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:OFFICIAL: People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.. This is one of those many cases. Just because it's the official name does not mean we should use it for the title, especially when it's a question of styling. What matters is how prevalent that style is in reliable source usage. Unless it's dominant, we follow WP:MOS. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCAIRCRAFT prefers the official name of an aircraft with only a few exceptions, such as if the aircraft is predominantly known under an unofficial nickname. Why should other aircraft have titles with their official names and not this one? What makes this aircraft different? - ZLEA _T\^C 17:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times here, "Max" meets the NCAIRCRAFT requirement to use the official name just as well as "MAX" does - it's the same name. The only distinction is a matter of style, which is addressed by MOS. Too many sources use "Max", which is consistent with MOS guidance, for us to go against it. So "Max" is compliant with COMMONNAME, OFFICIAL, NCAIRCRAFT and MOS. "MAX" is compliant with NCAIRCRAFT and arguably OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, but not with MOS. More to the point, only one RM participant even mentioned NCAIRCRAFT, and provided no explanation as to why it preferred "MAX" over "Max" (which it doesn't anyway), much less why MOS should be ignored in this case (it shouldn't be - since there's no policy-based reason to do so). --В²C ☎ 18:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think secondary sources count in this case as they are usually written by people who don't know which is correct, and accidentally created confusion as to which name is official. I have yet to find a primary source that refers to the aircraft as 737 Max. What makes you think "Max" meets the official name requirement? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the whole point. We don't care what the official or correct usage is for our titles. We follow what the common usage is - what people are most likely to recognize, whether it's "correct" or not. And we look to secondary reliable sources to determine what this, not primary sources. But all this gets trickier when we're talking about style. "Max" meets the official name requirement of NCAIRCRAFT because "Max" IS the official name, though it is stylized by some (including Boeing) as MAX. But it's the same name; so it meets the requirement. Anyway, all this is moot to this review since nobody made this argument based on NCAIRCRAFT and the official name at the RM discussion being reviewed. --В²C ☎ 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────┘The FAA, AOPA, and numerous governments are stylizing the name instead of using its official stylization in official documents and reports? Also, if everyone started calling the aircraft "737 max", would that be the new title of the article? Your belief that secondary sources are always right does not appear to hold water. Plus, the usage of MAX and Max is looks about evenly distributed among secondary sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You're getting closer. I don't know whether the FAA et al is stylizing or using a stylization, nor do I see how that matters. And, yes, if everyone started calling the aircraft "737 max" that would be grounds to change the title to that. I don't believe that secondary sources "are always right" - who is "right" doesn't matter - that's the point you keep missing. Reread WP:OFFICIAL. Please. Yes, the usage of MAX/Max is about the same. This was noted in the RM discussion and is why the usage of MAX is insufficient to override MOS guidance. That is, to override MOS style guidance, a contrary style has to dominate in secondary reliable source usage. --В²C ☎ 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse/Comment from an involved party. My oppose votes on (both) original discussions firmly stand for the reasons I originally stated, but those reasons are not the point of my comment here. Instead, after reading over the statements made by Calidum on this move review, it is clear to me that the user is very passionate about their desired result, and the primary motivation for this review is frustration with the closer, rather than notable concern with the discussion. Per the first sentence of WP:MRNOT, move review proceedings do not exist to cast aspersions against the closer, and disagreements there should be handled elsewhere, not here. Further, the discussion which was had on the closer's talk page clearly was not started to engage in discussion, but rather threaten the closer with "the quickest close overturned". Furthermore, and most importantly in my opinion, it is very clear that the decision to close (both) move discussions were in accordance with the concensus of those discussions. I believe that a very fair argument could be made in either direction (move the page or not), especially with regards to existing policies, and I think that both arguments were presented fairly. However, it is clear to me that given the responses to the move requests, a majority of editors involved believe the page should not be moved. I believe that it is undeniable that the closer made their decision based on concensus. I suppose that whether or not concensus should be ignored in this case is something that could be discussed here, although I firmly believe that there is no compelling reason to "overrule" it in this instance. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No one disputes that a majority wanted it not moved. You missed the point here entirely. —В²C ☎ 22:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

To HunterM267: on Wikipedia, a majority is not a consensus (please re-read that policy). There was a consensus, though, because when the rationales are read, we find that the oppose args had no "teeth", and the support args gnawed right through them! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  22:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: @Born2cycle: thank you both for your replies. I am aware of the Wikipedia definition/policy surrounding consensus, and the fact that a mere majority/vote tally does not necessarily mean that consensus had been reached. By my understanding, the "point" is that the 70% majority that opposed a page move cannot be respected as consensus, because the oppose votes fail to "respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". However, I would argue that the oppose arguments (for the most part) did respect the appropriate policies, for many of the reasons Fuzheado discussed above, most notably that a simple text match search in Google News does not sufficiently account for the domain-specific press familiar with aviation, especially when accounting for regulatory and official agencies (separate from Boeing). --HunterM267 ^talk 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem with the oppose !votes per se, and nobody has made this a matter of respect or disrespect for policies and guidelines. The problem with this close is that it did not take into consideration that the nomination and the support rationales (rationales are what closers are supposed to go by when they close a discussion on Wikipedia, not !votes) were policy- and guideline-based, while the oppose rationales all failed to effectively rebut those support arguments. So consensus in the discussion was reached by the supporters to move the pages as requested. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hunterm267, you claim the oppose arguments "did respect the appropriate policies", and cite "many of the reasons Fuzheado discussed above", despite the fact that the challenge to that remain unanswered. I repeat, Claiming that the opposers had “legitimacy” in their arguments does not make it so.. What's missing in the original discussion, the close, and this discussion about it, are any words actually connecting the opposition to policy. There are simply no arguments of the form:

MAX (or Max) is consistent with (or violates) <some named policy> because <some coherent explanation>.

So the claims that the opposers "had 'legitimacy'" or they "did respect the appropriate policies" are entirely baseless. I mean, consider the reason you found most notable: "a simple text match search in Google News does not sufficiently account for the domain-specific press familiar with aviation, especially when accounting for regulatory and official agencies (separate from Boeing)". Back at the RM, you wrote: "737 MAX" is "the name used by a decent number of reliable sources", and that this assertion is based on "an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic". Now you're saying, ""a simple text match search in Google News does not sufficiently account for ...". Not only do you seem to be contradicting yourself, but you haven't even identified the policy this Google news text match search is relevant to, much less how this unnamed policy supports MAX over Max, and this is the reason you "found most notable"! Do you see why I keep saying the opposition is based entirely on fluff? --В²C ☎ 17:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Debated: 1. "in my opinion, it is very clear that the decision to close (both) move discussions were in accordance with the concensus of those discussions" (endorse by HunterM267). As both close concluded "no concensus", this is a logical fallacy.

2. "I believe that a very fair argument could be made in either direction (move the page or not), especially with regards to existing policies, and I think that both arguments were presented fairly." That "fair argument" was not made in the direction of no move (the opposing arguments are debated). This and other comments suggest a misunderstanding of policies. WP:NHC (and WP:RMCI) gives no weight to this argument: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - no problem with way this was closed and seemed a reasonably summation that there was not a majority support and it was also to early. If it is still not clear to the supporters of a move that MAX is not related to Max then another move request in six months may be necessary but this was far to soon after the first request was unsupported. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Endorse (involved). My rationale for Endorse is simple: WP:TITLETM and WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply.

The Support for Move side in both discussions mainly quoted mentions in major news outlets online as evidence of the amount of usage of "Max", and how it satisfies TITLETM, particularly "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". A simple Google search of top 40 hits for "Boeing 737 max" I did shows the conclusion either form is favored by the media over the other is still highly contentious and far from conclusive.

Let me also draw your attention to TITLETM's explanation, "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)" (especially quoted by one individual in the first discussion). In this case however, the "Zim" in the show logo doesn't clearly show the spelling to be either "ZIM", "ZiM" or just "Zim", therefore attempting to parse the capitalization of the name of the show by its logo alone isn't really possible IMO. But as the show name "Invader Zim" clearly refers to the main character, "Zim", and its name is demonstrably spelt like this in the show and related media itself, it's absolutely clear the form "Zim" should be used to represent the show name on Wikipedia. But in the case of "Boeing 737 MAX", as it's clear "max" is not a standard English word and clearly stylized by Boeing, and in turn accepted by FAA, AOPA and others. Therefore, this makes "MAX" clearly falling under WP:NCAIRCRAFT and not falling under TITLETM, and should be used for "Boeing 737 MAX" on Wikipedia as a clearly stylized trademark.

Another reason why I Endorse the move discussion is WP:IAR. As far as I can see, the rigid adherence by Supporters and Overturners to the application of WP:TITLETM is also fluff. Such a rigid and unyielding adherence to TITLETM as their rationale fundamentally ignores and denies the significance of authorities like the FAA accepting the name form. Also I would assume most news sources could be cognizant of Boeing's use of a stylistic name, therefore dictating their choice of an easier-to-read "Boeing 737 Max" instead. This assessment in itself pokes holes in the Supporters' interpretation of TITLETM and COMMONNAME through assessing online news sources. However this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia on the Internet that accumulates and aggregates the world's knowledge for the sake of education. I believe the significance of the acceptance of the stylization of the name should be communicated through the article name on Wikipedia, and the fact you do not fix something that clearly isn't broken, especially when the use of the form and the interpretation of the moot topics are clearly subjective.

Apart from the above, it is my opinion this saga is getting ridiculous. I support Fuzheado for closing the second move discussion, even if it may have attracted unwanted criticism as he was the closer of both arguments. The second discussion clearly had no consensus, whether you consider WP:NOTVOTE or not, and therefore I think Fuzheado is justified to have closed it anyhow for the purpose of not subjecting it to further unneeded processes. To me Calidum citing "Wikipedia is not a democracy" when making this move discussion, and Born2cycle saying "So the claims that the opposers "had 'legitimacy'" or they "did respect the appropriate policies" are entirely baseless" have done so without even scrutinizing the legitimacy of their own content by their own standards (which I have already addressed above); almost as if they're saying the views of the side they don't agree with are invalid, therefore they're hard done by and decided to drag this issue through a third round of debate just because they seem to not get an outcome favourable to their agenda. I simply find this behaviour highly cynical. Moreover, they seem blind to the fact there was a first discussion where the views of both sides remain legitimate and meaningful in contextualizing the current situation, especially since the second discussion had the oppose side referencing the same themes in the first discussion, but raised even more rationales particularly the fact that FAA recognizes the MAX form, which satisfies NCAIRCRAFT. So I find this move review dragging a dead horse through more processes just for the sake of it, and it's wasting everybody's time. Therefore my vote is Speedy Endorse to not waste anybody else's time anymore. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You lost me at the very start. The TITLETM guidance is: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". You wrote, "... the conclusion either form is favored by the media over the other is still highly contentious and far from conclusive." So, the trademarked spelling is NOT "demonstrably the most common usage", which means TITLETM indicates we "follow standard English text formatting, which is "Max". The support for "MAX" seems to be riddled with plain errors like this. Also, by the way, "max" is a word. Look it up. --В²C ☎ 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Paw is a word too" 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: "... the conclusion either form is favored by the media over the other is still highly contentious and far from conclusive". That is why in the absence of media consensus the status quo should be preserved and TITLETM shouldn't be indiscriminately applied, and supporters here have well and truly shown how WP:NCAIRCRAFT directly matches the intention to communicate aircraft designations used in the industry. Thank you for the good point by the way. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Optakeover: huh? TITLETM says it applies UNLESS a particular condition exists. We agree that condition (sources widely agree on a particular style) does not exist. So, per the very clear language there, we are to follow the style specified at TITLETM. Yet you think that means "TITLETM shouldn't be indiscriminately applied"? That interpretation makes no sense whatsoever. As noted at the RM and here repeatedly, the proposed style "Max" meets the NCAIRCRAFT requirement of using the name just as well as "MAX" does, since both reflect the same name. NCAIRCRAFT does not even address style; TITLETM does. If you think it should, then propose it be changed (and TITLETM should be changed to reflect an exception for aircraft names). But under existing policy and guidelines as they exist now and as they did during the RM, the guidance is clear: "Max". --В²C ☎ 17:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Debated: "WP:TITLETM and WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply." (endorse by Optakeover) There is agreement about WP:COMMONNAME, but (5/8) supporting arguments disagree about WP:TITLETM. (2/21) opposing arguments agree (1, 2 – these misunderstand WP:TITLETM). WP:NHC (and WP:RMCI) gives no weight to this argument: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, [...], and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   05:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and move as proposed<uninvolved>

Arguments supporting the move are based on policies and guidelines:

• WP:TITLETM ( "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." )
• MOS:TM (From styles "already in use by independent reliable sources" , "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." )
• MOS:ALLCAPS ( "Avoid writing with all caps [...], when they have only a stylistic function." )
• WP:COMMONNAME ( "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" )

Arguments opposing mostly refer to:

• the previous move request without consensus,
• the manufacturer's stylization — explicitly disregarded by MOS:TM and WP:OFFICIAL ( "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." )
• WP:COMMONNAME policy, that has nothing to say about capitalization.

Post-discussion arguments are:

• WP:NCAIRCRAFT that has nothing to say about capitalization and stylization.

Arguments supporting the move are based on 2 policies and 2 guidelines, showing with citations those apply in favor of "Max". Opposing arguments give importance to the official name — in contrast with WP:OFFICIAL —, and refer to one policy and a guideline, that does not have guidance about writing names with all capital letters. WP:CONSENSUS#Determining_consensus states "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Two thumbs up, AM, excellent rendering! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  11:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see the case against the endorsement arguments to be as cut-and-dried as you suggest:

• To accept the overturn camp's COMMONNAME arguments on one ground but to reject the endorsement camp's COMMONNAME arguments on quite different grounds is clearly inconsistent. One might point out that "not necessarily" leaves room for reasonable doubt in marginal cases such as this.
• Previous discussions were referred to extensively and NCAIRCRAFT at least once. It seems that this last reads very differently to literal-minded Wikipedians than it does to knowledgeable and experienced aircraft enthusiasts and I get a strong flavour of WP:IDONTLIKE when the former see how the experienced enthusiasts read it.
• You missed another argument which was put forward, that the capitalization is the proper name, and that remains plausible. For example I have seen people who spell their names with unusual capitalisations which are widely accepted and WP:PROPERNAME says Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English, so why not aircraft.

The endorsers may or may not be right but they do have a reasonable point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This and other endorsing responses fail to show that the policy WP:COMMONNAME, and guidelines WP:NCAIRCRAFT, WP:PROPERNAME (post-discussion arguments) differentiate and prefer all caps to standard English capitalization. As pointed out, the standard English capitalization "Max" is supported by a policy (WP:TITLETM), 2 guidelines (MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS), and also complies with the policy WP:COMMONNAME and the guideline WP:NCAIRCRAFT. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You too have a reasonable point, except that you too may or may not be right. The issue here is not who is right but who is being reasonable. The one thing that is not reasonable is insisting that the other side are the only ones being unreasonable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Decisions here are not based on who is reasonable/unreasonable, nor is it based on who is right. Decisions that close RMs and MRVs must be based on what is right, and only that. In this case, it is right to measure consensus based on policies and guidelines cited in the RM discussion, that is, it is right to align any local consensus with community consensuses from policies and guidelines. That was not done by the closer, and it is not being done by those who endorse the close – what is right, not "who" is right nor who is reasonable or unreasonable, what is right. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). The overturn arguments mainly seem to hinge on "ignore all !votes that do not cite policy", but the only actual policy (not guideline) invoked by the "move" !votes is Wikipedia:Article titles. However, the TITLETIM section of that policy specifically has exceptions built in for "common usage" in independent sources, so there is no grounds to ignore all !votes that are based on the MAX spelling being in common usage among authoritative independent sources. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"MAX" being the common spelling among authoritative independent sources is false. It was pointed out in the discussions that both "Max" and "MAX" are commonly used, thus the exception to WP:TITLETM does not overrule the policy and 2 other guidelines.

"Note that all style guides conflict on some points; the Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are a consensus-based balance between them, drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles, and taking into account Wikipedia-specific concerns." (WP:NCCAPS)

"Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." (WP:VOTE) WP:CONSENSUS is clear about policies being the deciding factor. Policies and guidelines support the standard English capitalization "Max", and oppose the marketing style of "MAX". —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean "consensus" that confirms only your own viewpoint? With the third discussion and counting, I think there's a whole group Wikipedians just gaming the system. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I mean WP:CONSENSUS, that "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" , accepted as a policy by the Wikipedia community. The cited policies are clear, thus You might be right about "a whole group Wikipedians just gaming the system" (probably not the group you suggest), but assuming good faith, it can be simply a misinterpretation of policies, or giving undue weight to certain concepts. Reading the actual policies can be helpful to this case. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aron Manning: Just so you know the Endorsers weren't the group to drag this topic through a third discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to deny that some things on Wikipedia actually need more discussion, and that those who facilitate such "drag this topic" into another discussion are auto-incorrect? You make the same error as the RM opposers and the endorsers here in this draggy, draggy discussion. You attempt to show that the nom "had no right" to open a new discussion, neither at the subject's talk page nor here at MRV. You're not alone, since the closer made the same error. Discussions are key – how else are editors going to garner true consensus?Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: With all that's been said about "fluff", I find your comment on "auto-incorrect" discussions really ironic.

In any case, I'm not going to add much more, and I rest my case. But while the Overturners have gone on repeatedly on their own (ironically) rigid interpretation of TITLETM and etcetera and claiming of "lack of consensus" because in their it isn't "community consensus" (as if their views actually reflect the community? At the state of this discussion I don't think so, not even arguably), the Endorsers have repeatedly explained the significance of NCAIRCRAFT and a fairer interpretation of TITLETM, from first discussion till now. With the lack of media consensus on the prefered term, you don't fix something that isn't broken. I think that the amount of irony generated by the Overturn side as they accuse the Endorse side for the very same logical errors they are guilty of and for the third time trying to do argument gymnastics to try to make a more superior image of their own interpretations of the disputed topics is pretty amazing. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1. I've read opinions that WP:TITLETM does not apply, but you are the first to refer to "a more fairer interpretation of TITLETM". That's new, and unexplained.

2. You are saying that the WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline is more significant than the WP:TITLETM policy (and forgot MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS, WP:NCCAPS). That's not reasonable. Not that it matters: WP:NCAIRCRAFT has nothing to say about stylization or capitalization, therefore no matter how significant it is, it gives no preference to either "Max" or "MAX". It's focus is on a higher level, on the "standard format of [MANUFACTURER]-[DESIGNATION]-[NAME]", not on the stylization of "[NAME]", as long as "nicknames or foreign reporting names" are out of the picture.

The proper usage of policies and guidelines is what differentiates arguments on the two sides. 3. The off-topic rambling shall remain unanswered. Also, there are no questions here to force you to answer, if you wish to "rest your case". —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Further Comment Let's take a sample paragraph from Boeing 737 MAX. Tell me which paragraph is easier and faster to identify the model name from all the text therein:

The 737 Max series has been offered in four variants, typically offering 138 to 230 seats and a 3,215 to 3,825 nmi (5,954 to 7,084 km) range. The 737 Max 7, Max 8 (including the denser, 200–seat Max 200), and Max 9 are intended to replace the 737-700, -800, and -900, respectively. Additional length is offered with the further stretched 737 Max 10. As of January 2019, the Boeing 737 Max has received 5,011 firm orders and delivered 350 aircraft."

versus:

The 737 MAX series has been offered in four variants, typically offering 138 to 230 seats and a 3,215 to 3,825 nmi (5,954 to 7,084 km) range. The 737 MAX 7, MAX 8 (including the denser, 200–seat MAX 200), and MAX 9 are intended to replace the 737-700, -800, and -900, respectively. Additional length is offered with the further stretched 737 MAX 10. As of January 2019, the Boeing 737 MAX has received 5,011 firm orders and delivered 350 aircraft.

The second paragraph using "MAX" clearly is easier to identify the model of the aircraft. In a large sea of text which the Boeing 737 MAX article is, and as an encyclopedia article which is to inform readers about the information therein in the easiest-to-read and best way possible, using the mixed-case "Max" proposed by Overturners/Support Movers clearly makes it harder for the reader to make our the model "Max" versus other mixed-case text, because they are now much more visually-similar and harder to differentiate. With the UPPERCASE "MAX", the model "MAX" becomes much more apparent it is the model and is referring to the aircraft and the model, distinguishing it against other text which are either lowercase or mixed-case.

This clearly swings the argument to Endorse and to Oppose the move in favor of WP:Ignore All Rules because we are here to write an encyclopedia that is as legible and easy-to-read as possible. That, in combination with the voices proposing WP:NCAIRCRAFT, the lack of media consensus on the prefered style (central to TITLETM) and etcetera, clearly demonstrates the arguments of Overturn/Support Move are clearly insufficient. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, I created User:Optakeover/Boeing 737 Max with all "Max" so you can be the judge. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You previously mentioned irony. The irony is lost on almost everybody in this discussion. It is truly ironic that if we were to put ourselves in the shoes of the closer of this MRV, on the one hand there are cogent arguments to overturn, and on the other hand there is the closer who is a Wikipedia pioneer and an admin of three lustrums. So just as the RM opposers and supporters acted in good faith, and just as the RM's closer acted in good faith, the MRV closer will act in good faith and probably endorse the RM closure. I have serious doubts that the close will be overturned, and the best and only hope would be for the MRV closer to agree with SmokeyJoe, which would mean overturning just long enough for a different admin to close the RM. Again, if I were to put myself in this MRV's closer's shoes, I would probably be an admin with much less experience than the RM closer. I would in good faith see the persuasive rationales of the overturners to be forefront in my mind, while the thought that anything else but endorsing the closure would just add more insult and injury to a Wikipedian of excellent longstanding adminship, would sit there in the back of my mind. And I would close this MRV as "endorsed". Sorry, but that's the only irony I see. I could be wrong. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  18:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And there are no cogent views to Endorse? WP:UNDUE, much like others crying "fluff" and "community (????) consensus". Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

lol, UNDUE applies to encylopedic content of our articles, and not to MRV opinions. Just shows the clue level. No, there are no cogent arguments to maintain the status quo and not move these pages. None. That's not UNDUE, that's merely my opinion in this discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course UNDUE applies to articlespace, but the gist of the idea stands. Irony truly eludes you. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And that is your opinion in this discussion. Just as it is your opinion that devoting one of you user subpages to showing how "Max" looks as opposed to "MAX" is in any way policy- or guideline-based. The MOS guides us toward "Max", which by the way has no effect on the meaning of the article or the meaning of your above paragraph. Your argument is groundless and soundless. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:IAR, with reasons as above. And this is the kind of behaviour repeatedly demonstrated, where a user simply shouts "groundless and soundless" as if that alone indeed renders the argument as such. This is the level of tone-deafness we are discussing about. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Stating "your argument is groundless and soundless" is a great way to summarize the argument of those who wish for the original close to be overturned here, and which completely ignores the points addressed by opposing respondents to the first two discussions, and those of the closer. Nowhere did Optakeover state that his subpage is policy/guidelined-based, but instead is based on the principle of WP:IAR. --HunterM267 ^talk 19:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, User:Hunterm267. And @Paine Ellsworth: your comment has also demonstrated what others have been saying of the gross rigidity to the disputed topics, policies and/or guidelines, so much so you would brush aside a user's comment just because it doesn't address a policy/guideline (or what in your mind is a relevant policy/guideline) directly. Remember, with this discussion being dragged into the third repetition, the deliberate brushing aside of opinions as "fluff" and "groundless" should be shown in a stark light and rightfully criticized. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To argue to ignore the rules speaks volumes in these extended talks about how much the rules mean. You and others continue to call out to ignore the rules without giving one iota of very good reason to do so. Without such very good reason, the rules should not be ignored. As for your "rightful criticism", it's just your opinion. Nothing more nor less than my opinion. And your continued arguing seems just an attempt to cloud the issues as they were noted by the nominator. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@HunterM267: WP:IAR is a policy. Just click on the link and you will see. Actually reading the policies might help you understand the arguments of those who wish to rename. I've summarized the 2 policies and 3 guidelines that apply in my comment 2 pages above, to save you time and effort. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   20:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Ignore all rules: We are not building an anarchy. Ignore all rules only if there is no major opposition to do so. In case of contentious topics ignoring all rules would just create trouble. There is a reason why the Wikipedia community invested so much effort into the policies that you wish to ignore now.

As your argument was not brought up in the Move Request, and it's off-topic here, I've addressed your opinion on your talk-page. In short: When reading the article linearly, the all-caps stylization becomes a strain on the eyes after a few paragraphs, therefore replacing "MAX" with "Max" would actually make it "as legible and easy-to-read as possible". Your argument can support the rename just as much as no rename, depending on subjective measures. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   21:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning, thank you for disagreeing with my views. I hope whoever reviews this discussion in closing understand that beating pots and pans and making noise just to disagree with someone else (did someone say "fluff"?) doesn't automatically destroy an argument, and it's left to a (hopefully) neutral, uninvolved party to decide. As someone has correctly mentioned "it's your opinion", as for us all, do bear in mind this is the purpose of a Wikipedia discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse I was involved in the March move discussion where I supported this move. I was pinged in this request, but did not comment because, at the time, it seemed to be an obvious no-consensus/consensus against and I didn't really care enough to go through the more recent sources. Based on my own reading of this RM, a no consensus close seems correct, and Amakuru lays out the reasons well. While the wording of the close leaves much to be desired, and the RM instructions recommending against the same closer for two contentious moves, I remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think the outcome was correct, so I don't think it's worth opening again just for procedural reasons. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind if I quote your rationale from March...

Support A number of press outlets use "Max", WP:TITLETM is pretty clear on this. Boeing has said the spelling is a marketing style not an acronym. The only real reason to keep is because that's what Boeing wants it to be called and that's not a very strong one.

I notice that like many other supporters in both RMs, you quoted policy, which as you know represents a strong community consensus. And I wonder what it says to you that opposers did not come out in strength with policies or guidelines to back up their opposition to the rename(s)? Don't you think that it should be the strength of the rationales and not the !vote count that determines the outcome? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  02:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't mind at all! You ask a lot of good questions and hopefully I can give equally good answers; my apologies in advance for being a bit long winded. The main reason I'm not willing to outright discount many of the oppose rationales is Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#General principles: editors will often imply policy-based arguments without specifically citing them. I feel this is the case for many who opposed. Without explicitly citing it, many oppose rationales were rebutting the argument of mine that you quote. WP:TITLETM says we should use standard English case unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Many of the oppose rationales argued that the "MAX" spelling was the most common usage, in which case the rationale of mine that you quote is still rebutted and should be discounted regardless of whether my comment contains a blue link or not. And this is partly why I didn't offer the same opinion again. I was pinged in this discussion, but because I wasn't following the news much anymore, I did not know if or how the use in independent sources had changed. Based upon the numerous oppose comments from those who edit the page and presumably follow the sources more closely than I do, I presumed my rationale was no longer correct. So I disagree with you that opposers did not come out in strength with policies or guidelines to back up their opposition to the rename(s)?; looking at their rationales, while they didn't contain little blue links, they did imply them and with enough strength to make me go from support to neutral. I also agree with you that it should be the strength of the rationales and not the !vote count that determines the outcome? but come to a different conclusion. Based on my readings of WP:TITLETM (already discussed), WP:COMMONNAME (Article Title policy generally prefers the name that is most commonly used), and WP:NCAIRCRAFT (This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military.), I agree with Amakuru: neither side is right or wrong here. A majority of sources, perhaps even a substantial majority, call it "MAX". Equally, the MOS says to use "Max". So ultimately "no consensus" is absolutely the right answer. All three of these guidelines represent widespread consensus, yet they conflict and in this case require us to interpret sources; a no consensus close is not unreasonable since the community at large has not resolved the tension between WP:NCAIRCRAFT and WP:TITLETM. I don't think the rationales of the supporters vastly outweigh the rationales of the opposers. Given the sheer amount of opposition, their rationales would have to be extremely deficient to say that there is consensus for the move. I don't believe this is the case and so a no consensus close is appropriate. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. I wasn't involved in the move request, but in reviewing the discussion it seems that the no-consensus closure was correct. Contrary to what some others seem to be suggesting, the request raised legitimate bases both to support moving to the new title and to support retaining the existing title, and I think a reasonable read of the resulting discussion makes it clear that sufficient support did not materialize in favor of moving over retaining. It's not appropriate to relitigate the arguments for and against the move in this forum; the purpose of the discussion here is simply to decide if the closure was appropriate — and it looks like it was, for the various reasons already explained in some detail above (particularly by User:Amakuru and User:Wugapodes, whose points I'll just second instead of rehashing). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: I originally felt it was sufficient to second the well-phrased rationales of some of the earlier commentators. However, since that time there's been what I see as a degree of process bludgeoning and RM-relitigation from certain quarters, which has unfortunately muddied the discussion and obscured what I think are important points of consideration, so I should probably clarify my endorsement. (Sorry for the length.)

The arguments. Those supporting the move pointed most frequently to TITLETM, a policy which asserts that article titles should follow normal English capitalization rather than full or partial capitalization, unless the capitalized form is the common use — and supporters gave reliable sources that exhibited the non-capitalized form. Supporters also noted the related TM/TMSTYLE, as well as ALLCAPS, which says to avoid writing using all-capital letters when they have only a stylistic function. Those opposing the move pointed frequently to COMMONNAME and introduced a variety of reliable sources that used the capitalized form — and further argued that the capitalizing sources were more reliable for various reasons (more professional, more closely connected to the field, etc.) and so merited greater consideration in determination of COMMONNAME (implicitly per SOURCES). Opponents also asserted the appropriateness of using the plane's OFFICIAL designation with appeals to RS and the NCAIR guideline. Finally, IAR was invoked (both explicitly and implicitly) against the TITLETM rule.

The closure. Per the closing instructions, a closer must consider not just participants' expressed preferences but also evaluate their arguments to determine if consensus exists — understanding that consensus isn't determined by vote but by trying to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Per NHC, the closer is "not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate." (That limitation also applies to us in this MR.) Though in this case the split was roughly 70-30 opposing, it would be appropriate to nevertheless declare consensus and close in favor of the move if the arguments presented by the majority lacked merit or were obviously much less logical, policy-based, etc. than the minority's. The appropriateness of the closure, then, turns principally on this decision, and Fuzheado's closure indicates they did not find that this was the case.

My conclusion. The job of this MR is not to re-argue the RM but to decide if the closer's finding appropriately reflected the discussion and followed the relevant guidelines. To me it seems clear that it did. The discussion revealed a tension between legitimate policies/guidelines, most notably COMMONNAME, NCAIR, etc. favoring the official capitalized form versus TITLETM, ALLCAPS, etc. favoring the sentence case form. All were legitimate for the participants (and closer) to consider, and it's not clear to me either from the discussion or from my understanding of broader consensus that either side clearly slam-dunks the other. That being the case, a finding of no consensus seems fitting.

Much of the opposition expressed in this MR seems rooted in the idea that certain policies must necessarily override others, implying that there can be only one legitimate interpretation and application of policy. I disagree. It's acceptable to argue that position in an RM, and fine for a closer to weigh competing policies; however, a clear winner did not emerge from the discussion we're considering, and so it's not appropriate for the closer to pick one. Per the guidance in WP:NHC: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.

PS. On a related note, there's the question whether Fuzheado should have closed this RM at all since they also closed the previous one. I agree it would have been better for someone else to have done it, but I don't believe it's necessary or worthwhile to overturn Fuzheado's closure simply on that basis — especially since the closure itself was sound, and since someone else would almost certainly have reached the same conclusion. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A very well written argument, thank you!

I'd add: The arguments listing only the all-caps sources failed WP:NPOV by ignoring the "Max" sources. In this MRV 13+ "Max" WP:IRS is listed, and only 9+ all-caps.

There are roughly the same number of long-standing WP:IRS using "MAX" and "Max". There are 2 vs 2 professional aviation sources (claimed more reliable) listed (see the summary), therefore WP:COMMONNAME is not decisive.

Invoking WP:IAR is subjective/biased towards the official stylization.

Only WP:TITLETM policy and WP:NCAIR guideline remains. WP:NCAIR does not overrule WP:TITLETM for aircrafts, see the proof.

The close should have evaluated the arguments, noting these mistakes, and concluding that 1 policy and 2 guidelines support the rename, and a long list of false assumptions (such as the 13 WP:OFFICIAL vote) oppose the rename. WP:RMCI requires this evaluation, and the close failed to follow this rule. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on the matter. Others — both in the original RM and here evaluating its closure — feel differently and have explained why. No more pepper or repetition is necessary. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Further Comment @Wugapodes: That's a very well written argument! I'd point out that WP:TITLETM is a policy, whereas WP:NCAIRCRAFT is just a guideline. The focus of WP:NCAIRCRAFT is on the content and structure of aircraft article names, not the stylization, therefore actually there is no "tension" between the NCAIRCRAFT guideline and the TITLETM policy. 'Boeing 737 Max' is not "nicknames or foreign reporting names", thus the guideline is not against the standard English capitalization. The "tension" is only in the number of arguments referring to NCAIRCRAFT, without explanation. This is why citing policies and showing how those apply to the case is important.

As WP:NCAIRCRAFT does not give clear guidance regarding the stylization, and it is given too much focus in contrast with the policy, it's only causing distraction. I admit, I supported that distraction by including it in the summary above as "post-discussion argument", to give an NPOV summary, but it should not have been brought up at all in the Move review. To avoid further distraction, WP:NCAIRCRAFT should be left out of this review, and focus should be given to reviewing the original arguments in the two Move Request discussions. Edit (del): [Whoop whoop pull up on May 26] referred to this guideline with different title. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the standard English capitalization "Max" is the most common in reliable sources. A search for "Boeing 737 MAX" reveals (on first 3 pages) the following

• sources using "MAX": TheDailyBeast, Axios, FAA, ThePointsGuy, news.aa.com, independent.co.uk, AOL, AirwaysMag, SimpleFlying, Yahoo, scmp.com, bgr.com — some of these not reliable or well-known.
• sources using "Max": NYtimes, BBC, CNBC, BusinessInsider, AbcNews, Msn, Today.com, Slashdot, PBS, CNN, Vox, CBC, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, cbsnews.com, TheAirCurrent.

The most popular and reliable sources use standard English capitalization, with some exceptions. Different search queries bring up even more cases of "Max", Wikipedia with the "MAX" stylization is the exception in the first search results, in the company of Boeing. Based on these observations 2 policies WP:TITLETM, WP:COMMONNAME, and 2 guidelines MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS clearly support renaming to "Max".

"The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move." This is in contrast with the consensus process as defined by the Wikipedia community: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating 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." (WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus), reiteration of WP:Consensus policy).

The close clearly does not follow this instruction. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

While many reliable sources do use "Max", it's Boeing's aircraft. Shouldn't Boeing have the final say as to what their aircraft is named? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They have, but the article title is governed by WP:TITLETM, not Boeing. That would be bias. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

First, WP:NCAIRCRAFT isn't a post discussion argument, it was made by Whoop whoop pull up on May 26. It should not be disregarded. While it is a guideline, it is one which clarifies the policy in the context of aircraft and should be given full weight since it is in service of the the consistency criterion.

Second, you fail to include Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, Forbes, The Seattle Times, and Time in the list of sources which use MAX, which Redalert2fan on May 25 and Georgian on May 25 cite. Georgian also argues that CNN switches between the two. This is the exact reason we should not be deciding this post hoc, the participants are aware of sources beyond the first page of Google results. For the same reason I didn't offer an opinion in the actual move discussion, I'm not comfortable determining which one is most common in sources here. The venue for weighing sources and deciding what is most common was the move discussion, and I don't believe participants came to a consensus on that point. Our job is to assess the consensus on what is most common, not decide what is most common.

Third, I don't deny the close was poorly worded, but I don't believe that an admin since 2003 is boneheaded enough to simply count the comments. Even if they were, per my original comment here, I think no consensus was the correct close, and per WP:NOTBUREAU don't see much benefit in opening it up just to close it as no consensus again (obviously if consensus here is that it's not the correct close it should be reopened). Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Among the reliable, long-standing, major media outlets ca. 6 (as You listed) is using the "MAX", and 13 (as I listed) is using "Max", plus the ambiguous CNN, AbcNews. You are free to debate this is not majority, but do so with some NPOV. I also listed many sources that oppose my view for neutrality, that you failed to do. These are smaller, less reliable sources, not by choice, but as a result of google's prioritization. Thank you for pointing out that major sources were not part of the first 7 pages I skimmed.

With ca. 13 long-standing media outlets using the title case "Max" and 6 using the all caps "MAX", the latter is clearly not "the most common usage in sources" , therefore WP:TITLETM clearly applies: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization" , no further "weighing sources and deciding what is most common" necessary. MOS:TM makes the choice more clear and independent of subjective weighing: "editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." "Max" is the standard English capitalization.

WP:COMMONNAME supports the most common case, that is arguably "Max". If we can't agree on that, it refers to the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, of which 2 is debatable whether "MAX" complies with them. Naturalness: "Max" is more natural, than "MAX". Consistency: title case ("Boeing 737 Max") is consistent with aircraft article title names, whereas "MAX" is an exceptional stylization. Both styles comply with the 3 other criterias Recognizability, Precision, Conciseness.

Regarding the close: whether it is poorly worded, it does not change the meaning. The policy of WP:Consensus and proper interpretation of WP:TITLETM, and 2 guidelines was not taken into account when deciding the close. The number of repeated comments failing to properly apply policies and guidelines should not decide the outcome.

Third, I don't know about "boneheads" (please stay professional), nor care to judge one's character, or talk about persons anymore than this.

I respect your opinion about the close. I also state my own, and highlight the policies that support it:

WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS is clear that the encyclopedic article title to use is "Boeing 737 Max" with standard English capitalization of proper names, that is title case. WP:COMMONNAME better supports "Max" than "MAX" either as a more common case, or more compliant to the 5 article title criterias. WP:NCAIRCRAFT supports the "official name", in opposition of "nicknames or foreign reporting names", but does not support the exceptional all caps marketing stylization of "MAX".

It was demonstrated that the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max" is either chosen by or complies with all the policies and guidelines cited by both the supporting and opposing arguments, including NCAIRCRAFT. No matter the number of opposing arguments, if those don't give a strong case against the encyclopedic standards. Consensus policy is clear the consensus is determined based on proper application of policies, not "the preferences of the participants", or the number of arguments. The close is expected to reflect this standard.

I agree with you that just reopening would not be beneficial, but would only attract more repeated arguments on both sides. The solution is to reopen and close the move request according to the word of WP:Consensus. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I disagree that your interpretation of policy is the only reasonable interpretation. Respectfully, I doubt further discussion will be productive as it feels you and I have already started going around in circles. I respect your opinion on the policy, in fact I agree with it to some degree, but I feel many of your points are just relitigating the discussion. I suggest you read WP:NHC: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. My point is not that I agree with the way the opposers interpreted policy, just that their views are reasonable given the text and spirit of the relevant policies. I simply don't see consensus here. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Point of clarification from the closer. To reiterate [7]: I have no particular feelings about which title should be the final one chosen. I am somewhat dismayed that despite my initial comment about multiple reasonable interpretations of WP:TITLETM as the very solid basis for "no consensus," many of the follow-up rebuttals on this page have mischaracterized the nature of news sources in challenging this conclusion. Therefore, I am compelled to step back in to remind folks: the point of a move review is to determine the appropriateness of the close and not to relitigate all the points. Instead, it should be used for cases that did not "follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" as stated in WP:IMR. (The second point in WP:IMR seems not to have been brought up.) Therefore, in this particular case it is useful to show the details of what I saw in the arguments and to question why these have been left out of the conversation just above this one by Aron Manning [8] but has been noted by [9] Wugapodes. This is to show that the spirit and intent was followed with solid, evidence-based decision making.

The following list contains prominent news outlets that originate reporting and news content while also being respected as reliable and thorough within their respective fields. As opposed to simply regurgitating wire copy from the Associated Press or other outlets, the news organizations below have knowledgeable staff that must be seen in a more prominent spotlight versus a news agency that might have reported about the 737 MAX/Max recently only because of the crash and investigations. Simply counting sources that use one or the other can be considered a case of WP:UNDUE weight. One must take into account the nature and long-standing reputation of the news outlets examined and not simply take a tally. Therefore, the list of notable outlets using MAX include:

• Reuters - [10]
• The Wall Street Journal - [11]
• Seattle Times - [12]
• Aviation Week & Space Technology - [13]
• The Economist - [14]
• ABC News - contrary to the above, it uses both Max and MAX [15]

As can be seen, the top business news outlets of Reuters and The Wall Street Journal use MAX, as does the local newspaper of Boeing's main operational faciliites, The Seattle Times. The other paper in town, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, uses both. ABC News uses both forms. For good measure, if you look at the most influential publication in this arena, Aviation Week & Space Technology, they use MAX. So does the top business publication, The Economist. In the above list from Aron Manning, MSN and Slashdot are presented as examples but don't really make sense, as they are not aggregators and not originators of news content.

Clearly, this shows there is no definitive case either way, which means no consensus is the only responsible conclusion from this particular RM and MRV. Again, it was not closed on a straight vote count. It was an examination of all the arguments with additional context-seeking to clearly conclude no consensus. If a user can look at the above information and conclude that a move is justified, I have to question that person's knowledge of and commitment to the community's fundamental policies and principles. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no dispute about whether there is a definitive case either way. That's the point. Everyone recognizes neither stylization is demonstrably the most common usage in sources. So demonstrating that that is not the case is besides the point, but the fact that you think it's relevant to do so, after all of the discussion above, does help explain how and why you misread consensus.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably interpret TITLETM differently. It's quite clear on this: Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Since we agree the trademarked spelling [MAX] is NOT demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark [Boeing], that means the title is to follow standard English text formatting. Which, in this case, is "Max", not "MAX". --В²C ☎ 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, B2C. No one in favor of the move has argued some sources don't follow Boeing's lead. Rather, the argument has been that a majority do not to do so, and therefore we follow standard English usage, like TITLETM mandates.Calidum 19:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Point of consideration. Folks, I see your point, clearly understand it and find your desire for consistency very admirable. The dynamic I raised above, however, cannot be ignored and I believe is the major crux of the problem. In the spirit of comity, I'd be interested in people's views on a new angle since we've never focused on this exact aspect.

To restate: As opposed to simply regurgitating wire copy from the Associated Press or other outlets, the news organizations ... have knowledgeable staff that must be seen in a more prominent spotlight versus a news agency that might have reported about the 737 MAX/Max recently only because of the crash and investigations. In short, in the absence of high profile crashes of the 737 Max/MAX being reported in the mainstream media in 2018-2019, the 737 Max/MAX would likely only appear in business and specialist press as listed above. As is the case with most airplane models, they are usually only mentioned in perfunctory stories about orders, development or tourism. In these cases, it is almost assured that the use of "MAX" would predominate. But after the tragedies in 2018-2019, the mention of this particular model soared in the mainstream press, with wire copy and syndication replicating the use of "Max" in the news ecosystem in a way that no longer made "MAX" the clear cut dominant use.

Therefore, I'm putting on a slightly different hat here not just as a closer but as a longtime admin and editor to try to bridge a gap and arbitrate. Can we agree that this dynamic of "story saturation" from the mainstream media (wire copy, general news outlets) has impacted the landscape such that "Max" may be appearing more than "MAX" if the tragedies had not occurred? If we can agree on this, then the question goes to whether we are beholden to policy to make this one particular case of "MAX" become "Max," simply because of this noterieity of the event, even if it would be inconsistent with the rest of the airplanes in Wikipedia. Does this mean Wikipedia will continually have this quirky, out of sync title because if an airplane model gains sufficient popular notice (good or bad) then the general news cycle takes over and titles lose their stylized look? Now this is may be the right way to go for some cases, but is it in this case? This is perhaps why those on the other side have brought up WP:IAR to account for this odd dynamic of the "common" news sources swinging the balance in the other direction that causes inconsistencies in our own naming. Is there room in our policies, guidelines, or just case-by-case delibration to take this into account? I present this dynamic in an open manner in the hope it may further the conversation rather than simply re-playing the same arguments over and over. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to consider brand-new arguments not presented in the RM, especially not from the closer of said RM!!! I wasn't in the close-was-a-supervote camp previously, because I hadn't seen evidence of supervoting, but now I do. Not to mention that what you're arguing is a novel and (as far as I know) unprecedented manner in which to weigh usage in sources for the purposes of evaluating the TITLETM guidance. Astonishing that you think this is appropriate or relevant here. --В²C ☎ 19:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: This is irrelevant and off-topic. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is neither of those. But when users are more interested in winning than understanding, then the Sisyphean cycle of talking past each other will repeat itself again and again. I've tried to contextualize the WP:IAR argument that was alluded to by Optakeover that the other side might not have seen. But it seems the battle lines have been drawn and few are interested in any further resolution. Disappointing, but not unexpected. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

IAR is for exceptional cases where following the general rules is problematic. No one in the RM even hinted that was the case here. This is a straightforward TITLETM case. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that the TM owner should be given more weight. But that’s an argument to change TITLETM. No one in the RM suggested that. Perhaps there is an argument to be made about how sources are weighted in these cases as you alluded to above. But again no one argued that in the RM either. So none of this is relevant to the close or this review of it. —В²C ☎ 05:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

B2C: Please don't misrepresent the original discussion: participants in the RM did indeed argue about the relative weight of sources. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: [Move review] should be used for cases that did not "follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" as stated in WP:IMR. (by Fuzheado)

WP:IMR 1st point: "[Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because the close did not follow WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus in closing this requested move discussion."

WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating 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."

To reiterate my summary above:

WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS is clear that the encyclopedic article title to use is "Boeing 737 Max" with standard English capitalization of proper names, that is title case. WP:COMMONNAME better supports "Max" than "MAX" either as a more common case, or more compliant to the 5 article title criterias. WP:NCAIRCRAFT supports the "official name", in opposition of "nicknames or foreign reporting names", but does not support the exceptional all caps marketing stylization of "MAX".

It was demonstrated that the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max" is either chosen by or complies with all the policies and guidelines cited by both the supporting and opposing arguments, including NCAIRCRAFT. No matter the number of opposing arguments, if those don't give a strong case against the encyclopedic standards. Consensus policy is clear the consensus is determined based on proper application of policies, not "the preferences of the participants", or the number of arguments. The close is expected to reflect this standard. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this has been repeated many times now. And again, there are reasonable and valid arguments that justify the no consensus close. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please identify a single “reasonable and valid” oppose argument that was presented in the RM that was not soundly refuted. Otherwise, stop claiming the non-existent exists. —В²C ☎ 05:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There were many reasonable and valid arguments on both sides, and there were no sound refutations, just counter-points. В²C, please stop this bludgeoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The sound refutations of the decisiveness of WP:NCAIRCRAFT is just a few lines above. WP:COMMONNAME as opposition was also refuted, as there are at least as many WP:IRS using "Max", if not more than those using "MAX". There are no more guidelines to show up as opposition, the rest of the arguments are mostly WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."

In favor of the rename there is 1 policy, 2 guidelines strongly supporting, and 1 policy weakly supporting. This claim has been proven with citations and sound logic, see above.

Feel free to make a stronger case for any opposing argument, instead of telling what to do or not. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Aron: No, this is not the place to "make the case" for either side — this discussion is simply to determine if the close was handled appropriately. Speaking for myself, I don't yet see any reason to believe it wasn't.

I think part of the problem in this case is that there's a feeling among certain parties that there's only a single valid interpretation/application/weighting of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines — their own. However, regardless of how loudly that's asserted, I don't think that's necessarily so, and don't think it's so in this case based on the contents of the discussion. I do understand that those who support any move request that fails to reach consensus (and is closed as such) will probably be disappointed and believe that the result was wrong — obviously, since you wouldn't have supported it if it you didn't think it was justified. However, working in a collaborative project like Wikipedia means understanding that others will interpret/apply/weigh things differently than you, and though you're not obliged to agree with others' views, you should at least recognize that there are other valid viewpoints which an impartial closer must recognize.

The views on both sides of the debate have been well represented here — probably too well, since (again) this isn't the place to relitigate the move itself. Probably best at this point to allow the review to conclude without the original arguments being beaten any further. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the impression you got from reading this discussion is that "there's a feeling among certain parties that there's only a single valid interpretation/application/weighting of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- their own", then I find it hard to believe you've read the discussion very closely. I know I don't have that feeling, and I don't sense it from anyone else involved in this discussion, on either side. That said, not any interpretation is valid. Otherwise, anyone can rationalize any JDLI position by basing it on some irrational "interpretation" of any policy/guideline as they see fit. That's why specifics are so important. Unless it's obvious, explain why you think a particular policy/guideline is reasonable to interpret the way you're interpreting it to support your position. That's what was missing from the oppose side in the original RM, and from its defenders in this MRV. Not so for the supporters. --В²C ☎ 17:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

B2C: I'm pleased you recognize the validity of others' views, though that recognition seems at odds with your continued assertion that those who opposed the original move have no good basis for doing so. The reasons why editors supported or opposed the move in both the most recent request and the one shortly before it (which various participants cited) are explained in the relevant discussions, with some believing certain policies and guidelines should prevail, and others arguing that they should not. I certainly don't assert that every view is equally valid, and agree some are better than others, but I also believe in the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that strict applications of policies do not always lead to the best results. In regards to the Boeing 737 MAX RMs, I think it's reasonable to conclude from the discussions that most involved editors felt this was the case — and reasonable to close accordingly. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing, I'm sorry, but to me this sounds like a novel excuse to simply count !votes rather than evaluate arguments through the lens of WP policy. No one in the RM argued that the supporters were interpreting policy/guidelines too strictly. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

B2C: I don't suggest counting votes. I also don't suggesting counting policies. I do suggest evaluating arguments, but since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that evaluation is not simply a mechanical or numerical one. Opponents of the move seemed to lean most heavily on the name Boeing 737 MAX being the official name of the aircraft used in various reliable sources, and asserted that certain sources are more relevant or have more weight than others. Supporters seemed to lean most on TITLETM, and to an extent on ALLCAPS. As an uninvolved party I don't say which is best, nor would it really be appropriate to do so here. All that's relevant to note here is that legitimate grounds were raised both to support and to oppose, and that neither side was obviously right or wrong. Per the closing instructions, it's not the closer's job to pick a winner; the closer's job is solely to find out what the participants have decided — and in this case it was correct for the closer to conclude that the participants did not reach consensus to move. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing, I think your assessments about both sides are close enough. But here's the thing. Note that you cite no policy basis for the oppose side. You do accurately note that they "lean most heavily... on the name ... being the official name", but doing so flies in the face of clear language at WP:OFFICIAL. It's one thing to cite NOTBUREAU when the disagreement is over some bureaucratic minutia, but here we have one side soundly based in policy, and the other side clearly contrary to policy. So this isn't about a difference in interpretation of policy. It's about whether a position is based in policy at all, or just ignores it for no stated reason, much less a good one. --В²C ☎ 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Those in the discussion cited various policies and guidelines, including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCAIRCRAFT, and implicitly WP:SOURCES based on assertions that some were more reliable and should carry more weight than others. Those things are not contrary to policy — they are policy, plus a guideline. The discussion turned on how to weigh those considerations against competing considerations including TITLETM and ALLCAPS, and no consensus was reached that the latter ones should outweigh the former.

Also, B2C: your persistence in asserting that there was "no stated reason" for those who opposed the move is extremely inaccurate and directly at odds with the content of the discussion itself. You've also asserted elsewhere that (for example) no one raised the relative weighting of sources[16] when in fact multiple participants did exactly that. This kind of misrepresentation only muddies this discussion and is not helpful; please desist. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuzheado: The reason for the Move review was the observation that a close in the spirit of WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus would have determined consensus "not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating 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."

I have to reiterate that most opposing arguments are personal preference, or WP:OFFICIAL which is a common fault. The opposing arguments come down to one guideline that does not give explicit guidance regarding stylization and capitalization, therefore it's applicability is debatable.

On the other hand the supporting arguments brought up 1 policy, 2 guidelines that clearly and explicitly instruct to name the article "Boeing 737 Max", not "MAX".

The WP:Consensus should reflect that the policies and guidelines favor the rename. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just as did the RM closer, the endorsers of the MRV seem to be taking the "easy way out" and ignoring the community consensuses that shaped the policies and guidelines. And this is being done without a single very good reason to do so. Basically they're saying, "It's a !vote count, and that's that!." Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist as uninvolved and impartial expert in move requests. The closer was involved. I explicitly wrote the guideline cited about three months not to be prescriptive but descriptive, and it's true: usually, people like supporting re-requests a lot more if it's more than three months after the first request. Delayed re-requests are more successful. Nowhere in there did I write "should" or "must" or anything of the sort. To suggest that my humble description, aimed at helping newbies know not to re-request immediately if the result isn't what they like, somehow has become this immutable law of a mandatory 3-month moratorium for move requests (as if I even had the power to determine such things!) is absurd. Red Slash 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification to reach consensus: To move forward to reaching a consensus Consensus, we have to do what the close missed and review each argument for soundness. I did this (disclaimer: with my own unavoidable POV, also in good faith, with proper, neutral understanding of policies and guidelines) for each argument and explained that evaluation on page [User:Aron_Manning/737_Max_RM] on lines marked with " Note:".

This should help reviewers understand why the opposing arguments are refuted. Below is the summary of the arguments, categorized by the most relevant claim made in each. Tl;dr: most opposing arguments are the false assumption WP:OFFICIAL, many do not apply guidelines properly, and most claims are not proven with citations or facts. On the other hand the few supporting arguments clearly explain and prove that WP:TITLETM policy applies to trademarks and explicitly instructs to name the article with standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max".

This is a clear and unambiguous ground to determine consensus. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

_{Below section edited: —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   09:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)   |   Previous version: permalink}

Reason to reopen

The close fails to meet COI-neutrality requirement of RMCI

The previous RM was closed by the same closer:

• 10:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC): The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one." — Fuzheado
• 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC): The result of the move request was: No consensus. — Fuzheado

WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest: "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request."

• "same closer closing is not appropriate" (Born2cycle)
• "It is not OK to close two contested RMs on the same page" (SmokeyJoe)

The close did not follow WP:RMCI

The close did not evaluate the arguments, thus ignored the closing instructions WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined [...] by evaluating [the] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]."

The close comment "The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move." shows the result is based on a head-count.

The previous close comment has no explanation for the "no consensus" at all: The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado .

According to WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious" . The close counted all the votes, failing to evaluate the arguments made. An evaluation shows, most votes are based on the false assumption: the correct name is the official. The intro of WP:OFFICIAL makes it clear this is not the case: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one."

Unsound arguments

^{Presented here is Evidence [...] 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., as required by WP:MRV.}

For the evaluation of each individual argument, see User:Aron Manning/737 Max RM § Discussion.

Claim: the opposing arguments, however numerous, do not make sound arguments for the "Boeing 737 MAX" title. This is explained here in general and with further detail in [the notes at each argument].

1. The most repeated (12/21 !votes) "official" argument is a false assumption, as explained by WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one." These !votes contradict WP:TITLETM based on that false assumption. — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy" applies. — Marked with  Note O:.
2. (4/21) personal preference votes without an argument made are closely related to the "official" argument, and subjective by definition. — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those based on personal opinion only" — Marked with  Note P:.
3. (3/21) misinterpretations are explained in the notes marked as:  Note M: arguments: 1, 2, 3 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
4. (1/21) opposing !vote makes 2 arguments that support the move  Note F: argument: 1 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
5. (1/21) !vote is referring to the guideline WP:NCAIRCRAFT, without taking into account that the guideline gives no guidance regarding the marketing style / capitalization, and does not state WP:TITLETM policy is not to be applied, marked as:  Note N: argument: 1 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"

(Note: There was and will be debate about WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline overruling WP:TITLETM policy. Those arguments are based on dubious claims, like: "737 MAX" is the designation (designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?"), "737 MAX" is not a name (what matters is "737 MAX" is a trademark and WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks)).

Some arguments are ambiguous in the RM, therefore it's categorization is also ambiguous. The [evaluation of individual arguments] can be discussed, and improvements suggested on the [associated talk page].

Supporting arguments

1. (5/8) WP:TITLETM policy: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". — Marked with  Note T:.
2. (2/8) MOS:ALLCAPS guideline: "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case". —  Note A: 1, 2
3. (1/8) MOS:TM: From among "styles already in use by independent reliable sources", "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." —  Note S: 1.

I could not find any opposing !vote, that makes a sound argument to oppose WP:TITLETM policy. Following WP:RMCI and WP:NHC, the resulting consensus is very different from the close that is reviewed. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   09:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Responses to summary

For the summary, see User:Aron Manning/737 Max RM § The close.

This is an incredibly biased and non-neutral "summary" ("...no sound arguments..."), however, it helps drive home the point that myself, and others, including the closer, have been saying: You say, "...clearly show that WP:TITLETM policy applies...". This policy states, among other things: Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.. You're right. This policy is applicable to this issue. And, as has been discussed by opposers and people here, the "trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. (see Fuzheado's comment above, specifically, "the list of notable outlets using MAX"). I realize that those who disagree with this will probably respond with counterpoints, and I respect that. However, that remains a perfectly sound interpretation of that policy, and one that should not be -and was not- discounted by a closer. --HunterM267 ^talk 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

5+ WP:IRS were listed using "MAX": Reuters, WSJ, Seattle Times, Aviation Week , The Economist

13+ WP:IRS were listed using "Max": (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...).

Is this "demonstrably the most common usage"?

To help reviewers, I have listed "10+" sources no less than 3 times in the notes refuting similar arguments that you made now.

In light of this I respectfully let that "incredibly biased" boomerang return to you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   22:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but HunterM267 is the first one out of all participants in the RM and this MRV to even try to claim that TITLETM favors "MAX" based on the ridiculous assertion that the "trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark..

And so it goes. A support-supporter offers a detailed analysis of the close, and an oppose-supporter responds with an irrelevant ridiculous new argument. --В²C ☎ 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an incredibly biased and non-neutral "summary" of the "summary". And we could go on and on. Fact is, you're right, too. The closer's comment that you cite is actually the most cogent argument that has been made thus far. Trouble is, it was made too late and in the wrong venue. That argument was not made in the RM, not by the closer of the RM nor by any participant. So it amounts to rearguing the RM, which should not be done here at MRV. I found that argument made by Fuzheado to be compelling, and yet it comes a bit too late, don't you think? It was not made in the RM, and it was not made here until very late in this discussion, which has to make one wonder why. It seems more of an attempt to manufacture justification for closures that were, well, shall I say, less than would be expected of an admin, let alone an admin of such long-term experience on Wikipedia. This whole thing has made me wonder just how much actual RM closing experience Fuzheado has? I've been closing RM's for several years, and I don't recall a single edit of this closer in any requested move. Perhaps Fuzheado has no recent experience closing RM's? When I first reopened this RM after Fuzheado closed it the first time, I didn't even know who the closer was let alone that they were an admin. My only thoughts were that the requestor had every right to reopen that RM nearly 3 months after a no-consensus result, and that the close itself was out-of-process and probably made by a very inexperienced editor, much like the recent premature close of this MRV (permalink). I acknowledge that I was wrong about the overall experience and background of a trusted long-term admin; however, was I wrong about that admin's RM closing experience? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  23:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Aron: Good grief — you're seriously labeling participants' views in the discussion as sound/unsound or true/false? Upon what basis? How should this not be seen as relitigating the original request? And you're taking the time to count the number of individual instances of every policy citation when the closing instructions specifically note that "editors will often imply policy-based arguments without specifically citing them"? And you're performing this count while also cautioning us not to waste time? Are you suggesting that a position that references more policies or cites them more often is necessarily the better or more desirable one? Are you familiar with WP:NOTBUREAU? Upon what basis is a title that correctly reflects the official name of a subject commonly used in various reliable sources "not encyclopedic"? (To be clear, I have no interest getting into a debate about the plethora of questions your post raises, but I felt it was important to note them.)

Far from objectively clarifying matters, your post above has very much the opposite effect: it's extremely unhelpful, and seems intended simply to frame your subjective opinions on the merits of the original move request. That does not belong here. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Huwmanbeing: Regarding your criticism: many of these questions do not address the evaluation, but my actions, this seems to be an off-topic wall of text. I will address the questions regarding the evaluation and the title. I'm sorry for the long reply, it is necessary to disprove your claims with enough evidence.

The evaluation proves the following claim: the close did not follow WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]" . It does so by evaluating all arguments in the RM one-by-one.

The basis for categorizing each argument is written as a  Note: under each one. Categorization of unclear / ambiguous arguments was difficult - just as ambiguous as the argument -, so I did my best to categorize arguments with the label best supporting the vote (opposition). Such categorization can be debated, if you wish, but all categories are refuted in the summary, therefore it would be mostly a waste of time. Nonetheless, you are welcome to do so, if that would alter the proportion of the categories, and help your case.

How is the "Boeing 737 MAX" title "not encyclopedic"? See WP:NCCAPS: "the Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are a consensus-based balance between [style guides], drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles, and taking into account Wikipedia-specific concerns."

To address your claims about the lack of objectivity, let me cite your endorse argument from earlier: "the purpose of the discussion here is simply to decide if the closure was appropriate — and it looks like it was, for the various reasons already explained in some detail above (particularly by User:Amakuru and User:Wugapodes, whose points I'll just second instead of rehashing)."

[Amakuru's endorse] ignores the most important rename argument, the WP:TITLETM policy, and falsely assumes "A majority of sources, perhaps even a substantial majority, call it "MAX".", referring to WP:COMMONNAME, that was not referred to in this RM in May.

[Wugapodes' endorse] refers to Amakuru's: "Amakuru lays out the reasons well"

These endorse arguments ignore the most important policy/argument supporting the rename (WP:TITLETM), which is a clear bias in favor of no rename / no consensus. Your endorse seconds these biased arguments, and it seems your statement "[my post] does not belong here" similarly suggests to ignore a conclusive evaluation to prevent reaching consensus.

Please understand WP:TITLETM properly to make neutral comments in the future. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Aron: the claim proven by your evaluation is that you believe the close was not appropriate. That's fine and not in doubt, but many others have expressed sound reasons for why they believe the ruling was appropriate. More bold-laden wall-of-text rebuttals are unlikely to make your points any clearer or more persuasive, so please don't bludgeon the process. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "sound reasons", that are so biased as to ignore WP:TITLETM policy invoked in 5 supporting arguments out of 8? These are the "reasons" you seconded (see above your comment). Please stop repeating your false and biased claims. Instead of mischaracterizing my proofs that are based on policies and citations, try to do the same and prove what you claim. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   01:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: WP:SATISFY. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Another off-topic noise, that was unnecessary. Writing a bit more neutral follow-up (diff) to the original biased review was the beneficial response to make. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   12:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved): Among those wishing to overturn the close, with one exception mentioning the procedural aspect of the same person having closed both RMs, all I see is attempts to rehash the RM discussion, but nothing that could be classed as significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. Summarising the various summaries, I think it is fair to say that opinions as to the move itself are largely polarised, with participants on both sides disputing the validity or applicability of the other side's policy-based claims (and other arguments) – which sounds pretty like WP:NOCONSENSUS to me! Rosbif73 (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: There are no policy-based claims opposing the rename. (12/21) is a false assumption, (4/21) is personal preference (subjective), (3/21) is misinterpretation of policy, (1/21) is a guideline, that says nothing about marketing style / capitalization, (1/21) opposing !vote makes 2 arguments that support the move There is no sound argument that opposes the rename.

————————

Details and proof: The close is debated because it did not follow WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]"

To prove this claim, I did an evaluation of all arguments in the RM, showing that (12/21) of the opposing arguments assume that the official name "is ipso facto the correct title for the article" . WP:OFFICIAL makes it clear this is a false assumption, "contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy" : "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.

It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one. There are several places in which editors are urged to read the article title policy before proposing or supporting [opposing in this case] name changes, but for one reason or another, proposals [endorsing arguments] based entirely on official or legal names just keep coming."

The close missed this repeated mistake, counting it as 13 votes. There are 5 subjective "oppose" votes, and only 3 arguments based on policy/guideline: 2 logical fallacies and 1 referring to WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline, ignoring the fact that WP:NCAIRCRAFT does not give any guidance regarding marketing styles or capitalization, nor says to ignore WP:TITLETM policy in the case of aircrafts, thus both WP:NCAIRCRAFT and WP:TITLETM applies, and instructs to name the article "Boeing 737 Max". The order of words is ruled by WP:NCAIRCRAFT, the title case (standard capitalization for proper names) is ruled by WP:TITLETM.

WP:Consensus (and WP:RMCI): "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." WP:TITLETM policy (alongside, not in opposition with WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline) clearly applies, therefore the correct, "encyclopedic" title for the article is "Boeing 737 Max". Opposing claims have been refuted in the evaluation, therefore consensus can be determined. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• For a "Short answer", it is ridiculously non-short. Evaluating these arguments is essentially continuing the RM. A close citing these arguments would be an egregious supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Short answer referred to the first 2 or 3 sentences, and then detail was provided. But you knew that. Evaluating these arguments is essential for the unbiased closer of this MRV to make an unbiased closure. And you cannot have it both ways, that is, sometimes you argue that a closing statement should have been more explanatory (which does tend toward at least the appearance of a supervote), and yet now you seem to be wobbling the other way. However we shake the tree, the only fruit that falls from it are the community consensuses that honed and shaped the policies and guidelines that mattered in the RM and the closing instructions. They weren't followed so the closure should be overturned and the pages moved. There's your short answer. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I didn't know that, my mistake, sorry, I missed the italics "details". Italics are not a visual cue for me. I say "Short ... and then anything but short TLDR. The horizontal line really helps. Still, the analysis is an involved analysis, and it is quite extraordinary to argue to an "overturn" from "no consensus" to "consensus to move" based on such an analysis. I agree that there is a point, but the point goes to "relist for more discussion". Much of the discussion has actually occurred here, but it is not an acceptable discussion because many would not be participating here because here is not the right place to re argue the facts of the arguments. There were many little problems. I think a relist is the only clean way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! This is a very reasonable answer. A relist can work imo, if we can stop repeating false assumptions, and misinterpretations of policies. Those biased this RM with sheer numbers, and probably would just repeat the same scenario again. Given that these aren't repeated, I can agree that a relist is a clean way forward (sidenote: maybe not the only one). —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   03:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• And I think the discussion in the RM had reached its zenith and was finished after the 7-day period. There was consensus, rough or clear, to move the pages based upon policies and guidelines and the community consensuses that built them over the years. The only acknowledged policy on the oppose side was IAR, but we have yet to hear from any editor a very good reason to ignore the rules in this case, so citing IAR without good reason speaks volumes about the importance of policies and guidelines in the RM under discussion. While I am not inclined to change my choice to overturn and move the pages, I have no problem with relisting as long as the relisted RM is closed by a different editor, as you suggested in your MRV rationale. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  03:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• "editors will often imply policy-based arguments without specifically citing them" Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• There was no policy nor guideline cited nor implied that overrode the article title policy and the guidelines explicitly cited by the nominator of the RM. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  04:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Others, most importantly including participants in the RM, disagree with you on that. "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Others, most importantly including participants in the RM, disagree with you on that. I think what's important is that most people who were not involved in the discussion are saying this was a bad close, while it is those who opposed the move who are re-litigating the matter here. Calidum 04:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Calidum: I supported the move in May and did not participate in this one so if you're insinuating that I'm arguing for no consensus because I'm opposed to the move you'd be wrong. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: (Correction: "supported the move in in March"). Calidum is not "insinuating" that you oppose the move. Imo he means that you brought up WP:NHC on 10 June 2019 (UTC), to give deeper meaning to opposing arguments, thus re-litigate those. As [you have endorsed [Amakuru's biased opinion], that ignored the main supporting argument WP:TITLETM, Calidum seems to be right about his claim. What Calidum insinuates is an off-topic comment anyway, better made on the user talk page. Please minimize the disruptions, thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   14:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: Who? What policy? Where is the citation? This seems to come from thin air. Please prove your claim or stop disrupting.

I agree with Calidum. There's a lot of skewing facts here, but not one citation that proves anything. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   04:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wugapodes' citation is from WP:NHC. I'd disagree with Calidum's characterisation that it is those who opposed the move who are re-litigating here; it seems to be primarily those who supported the move (and opposed the close result). Regardless, I see nothing sufficient to justify overturn and move as proposed, and while there may be arguments in favour of overturn and relist, I can't see how the ensuing discussion can have a snowball's chance of achieving consensus today. Endorse (and possibly relist in six months) seems the only sensible outcome. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that's clear from the link, also, it is the problem. We are not here to review WP:NHC, but the Requested move. This and similar logical fallacies endorsing the close, repeatedly, does not help reaching consensus, only disrupts the process. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, we're NOT here to review the requested move, merely to review whether it was closed properly. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• It has already been established that the close was improper, as it did not follow WP:RMCI, "Consensus is determined [...] by evaluating [the] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]." No such evaluation took place. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• You have made it perfectly clear that you believe the close was improper. Others have made it equally clear that they disagree. Now an uninvolved admin will have to assess the case. There's no point in repeating the same arguments ad infinitum. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• And others have made equally clear, this is the policy WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RMCI. It's not a matter of belief, so stop making false claims regarding what I state. Hopefully the assessment will be more neutral than this. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Aron, stop forcing your will on participants in this discussion. It's neither constructive nor meaningful. You seem to always want the last word, which is fine. But when you're going through each and every argument and picking them apart, not only is it not constructive, it's considered disruptive. Refer to the " Improving your arguments in the future" section, items 2&3, in particular. Garretka (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Aron Manning: I did, above, when you made these same points in response to my original rationale. I gave you links to diffs of the editor's comments I was refering to, I was clear what policy I said they were implying, and I have twice now pointed you to WP:NHC which makes clear that editors only need to imply, not cite, policy. Yet you seem intent on ignoring all the other aspects of closing that people, including me, have pointed out to you such as WP:NHC and WP:ACD. Stop bludgeoning the process by repeating the same arguments over and over in the hopes that you'll drown out the opinions of other editors. Just because everyone who disagrees with you got tired of dealing with you repeat yourself doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're being annoying. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: Your reply after #Sources1 does not refer to any policies, as you state, only the WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline. Please correct that faulty claim.

There's no need to endlessly repeat WP:ACD ("imply policy-based arguments"): the evaluation takes the 'votes' into account with the guideline those refer to. The notes under each argument evaluate the referred guideline as if it was cited, and proves those to be debatable, unsound arguments. See: Whoop whoop pull up's argument (WP:NCAIRCRAFT), Redalert2fan's argument (WP:OFFICIAL), Georgian's argument (WP:TITLETM)

I hope this addresses the false assumption that I ignored implied arguments satisfiably, and you don't need to repeat it with a big pile of unrelated links again, that just creates noise and disruption. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   15:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): I read the move discussion as no consensus. The for/oppose discussions are so polarized, both with merits, that the closer rightly found no consensus. Reading the above discussion seems like users wishing to re-argue their case and bludgeon the process, which is. Garretka (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not for anything, Garretka, but how you read the move discussion is not a valid justification/rationale for your endorsement. And your opinion about re-arguing or bludgeoning is correct; however, it also is no justification for endorsement. What we are asked to show is explained at WP:MRV#Commenting in a move review. We are asked to give a judgement of the closure of the RM based upon what we are guided by in the closing instructions, specifically:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating 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.

So if you have found any argument in the RM that is stronger than the rationales of the requester and supporters, this is the place to bring attention to those arguments to support a closure of no consensus. Otherwise your "Endorse" is just a word that carries no weight. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  18:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The point of a move review is to discuss the close. Was a consensus reached in the original discussion? From what I've gathered; no. Both sides have solid arguements, and it's true nothing changed from the previous move request, closed as NC. I may read policies differently than you, then again everyone interprets policies differently. In the end I really don't care what happens, just adding my opinion.

The bludgeoning comment had no effect on my opinion, I'm just pointing it out as my other bludgeoning comment is lost in the sea of text above. Garretka (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The point of a move review is to discuss the close." (by Garretka) Then repeats his opinion about the "original discussion", not the close. There is a logical fallacy here. Many opposing arguments misunderstand policies in similar ways, that you don't seem to notice in your own writing. You may read the policies differently because of this misunderstanding, as the policies and guidelines were refined by hundreds of editors through years to make those as clear as possible. The most relevant citations from the policies and guidelines are collected in the summary, which you are welcome to read, make suggestions to, or debate.

"In the end I really don't care what happens" (by Garretka) This seems to contradict the personal attacks you made to me on your talk page: "Either take my advice and stop bludgeoning, or don't. If you don't, my suspicion is you won't last much longer.", and more: "I will not stand by while a discussion is being bludgeoned to death." —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks, they're objective statements. You alone have made 48 of the last 100 edits to this discussion, and are responsible for over 30% of the text on this page. If that's not bludgeoning, I don't know what is. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To Garretka: Both sides have solid arguements

In my opinion, opposers in the RM had few if any weighted arguments, while supporters had the community consensuses of policies and guidelines backing them up. What we need here is more than just to say that "both sides" gave solid arguments, we need evidence. What solid arguments on the oppose side would you be referring to? Which oppose rationales had any teeth? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  14:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We've now had over two weeks of both sides of this debate talking past each other and repeating the same arguments over and over. Since it's clear that further debate will bring nothing new to the table, can we please closed this move review and move on with our lives? --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 23:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Always wondered what was meant by that. It's as if impatient editors who want a discussion closure think that all the editors here are doing nothing but sitting and waiting for a closing admin to come along. Does that really happen? Are we not all doing other things while we wait and "moving on with our lives" anyway? I for one wait with bated breath for a response from Garretka above. What makes someone want an immediate close to an ongoing discussion? Hmmm? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: the overturners do not talk past the endorsers, we addressed the endorsing arguments with evidence, showing many misunderstandings of policy. On the other hand, the endorsing responses did not address the evidence provided for the overturn. There is a lot of noise hiding the clear interpretation of policies, skewing the consensus process.

To close this discussion we need to establish consensus, whether the close followed "the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI" . We have established – based on facts – that #The close did not follow WP:RMCI. This was not debated by any comment (the "others don't agree" fluff is not a factual argument, just noise). If we have consensus regarding the inappropriateness of the close, then this review has reached its purpose, and can be closed. If you disagree, you are welcome to make your arguments, based on facts and citations. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ahecht: Revisiting your endorse comment I've noticed it's based on the assumption that "737 MAX" is the "common usage", which is not the case as the RM and MRV only listed 9+ IRS using "MAX", and 13+ using "Max", with a best effort search in the article sources and google. The adjective "authoritative" is not part of WP:TITLETM's requirement for sources, and WP:IRS uses it in connection with authors, not media sources (the basis of the article). Filtering the sources based on some concept of "authoritative" would just introduce bias.

The listed IRSs are all long-standing, independent, reliable sources. The endorsers have only listed ca. 5 "MAX" sources (none using "Max" - lack of NPOV), the rest was added by me, therefore I can state neutrally the " "trademarked spelling is [NOT] demonstrably the most common usage". Even if the list would be debated (which did not happen in this review), the fact that it is debated would mean it is not demonstrable, therefore the exemption of WP:TITLETM does not apply, and the policy requires the use of the standard capitalization "Boeing 737 Max".

Also note regarding the endorse that overturn arguments take into account the implied policies of opposing arguments, and claim (with evidence) the unsoundness of those arguments: (12/21) claims "official" as "ipso facto the correct title for the article. [...] In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one." (WP:OFFICIAL). One might claim those arguments imply WP:COMMONNAME, but it makes no difference, as "MAX" cannot be demonstrated as the common name. For the rest of the unsoundness reasons see: Unsound arguments.

Your !vote in the RM similarly depends on the assumed prevalence of "MAX" usage, thus both your !vote and your endorse are not given weight by WP:NHC. Do you have a counter-argument that you wish to share? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   19:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to re-litigate subjects such as which sources count towards common usage. The point of a move review is to determine whether WP:RMCI was followed or whether there was additional information that was not discussed in the original move discussion. Enough editors in the move discussion DID feel that there was enough of a preponderance of reliable sources to allow the "MAX" style to meet the requirements of WP:TITLETM, which in part lead to the close of no consensus to move. While whether or not you agree with that interpretation of the policy was important in the move discussion, it is immaterial here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And the point is that RMCI was not followed, in this case because it was shown that the divided usages in sources did not meet the exception in TITLETM, so those arguments in the RM, as well as your endorse rationale, have no teeth and are gumming this MRV to death !>) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  05:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ahecht: What editors "feel" does not matter, MRV is not a forum of opinions. Please present evidence, if you disagree. [Evidence proves] the "fact" you present is false: "MAX" is not "preponderance of reliable sources". As per WP:NHC (and RMCI): "discarding irrelevant arguments: [..] those based on personal opinion only" . —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Every forum on Wikipedia is a forum of opinions. Otherwise we wouldn't need human editors at all, and could just have the server count google hits and move or delete as necessary. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 11:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn (reopen for reclose). While it is true that it is often better to wait after a no consensus close to allow for new information to be collected etc. it is not a hard requirement. The statement from WP:RMCI "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request" is also a strong suggestion. While the discussion may indeed have been no consensus and it might have been better if the discussion had been further out it still should not have been closed with the same result as the previous close by the same closer. PaleAqua (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Further debate - The close did not follow RMCI

• The overturn argument is presented at #The close did not follow WP:RMCI. Is this debated, or we can close this review by reopening the RM? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This MR will be closed by an administrator who will ascertain the consensus (if any). Your views will no doubt be considered, as will the views of the other participants. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

N Off-topic: Good! There were no counter-arguments so far, so it seems we agree. Jokes aside: The question was about counter-arguments, not the process. We are not talking about the process, but participating in it, by discussing arguments and evidence. If you don't want to reach consensus, then why do you have to make more noise? We read at least 5 off-topic comments from you about the process, your impression of bludgeoning, WP:SATISFY, and "others agreed" claims without evidence. Continuing with this might show You in the light of bludgeoning. A quality discussion requires evidence (citation)-based arguments about the close and your understanding of relevant policies (as that's the base of the disagreement). I suggest answering to this on my talk page, to not disrupt the discussion more, thank you.

Back to the discussion: You disagreed previously with arguments about the RM in a rather emotional manner, so it's likely you have something to say about the close as well. Be sure to make it an argument addressing the close, or the mistakes in it (if you wish to claim there is none). —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)  Edited: 16:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved) and let someone else close it. There are a few iffy aspects of the closure which, considered in aggregate, make me think consensus should be rejudged by someone else.

1. The WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest issue ("An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request.")
2. The closing message was very poorly thought out. By citing the !vote percentages, and not citing any of the policies that had been discussed, it created the impression that the close was based on a headcount. Also, pointedly mentioning that the RM was opened "just 11 weeks" after the previous one whereas WP:RMCI says that successful requests generally take place three months (i.e. 12 weeks and change?) after the previous one strikes me as unhelpful pettifogging.
3. The actual reason for closing given by Fuzheado in this MRV above relies on a non-obvious interpretation of WP:TITLETM wherein "most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark" is based on a weighted count of sources, where specialized, domain-specific sources (in this case, aviation trade magazines) are given a much higher weight than publications with a more broad audience (like the New York Times or BBC). This seems to me like a stretched reading of policy, and one that wasn't discussed directly in the RM. (There is a comment by Vbscript2 that makes a similar argument, though it's not explicitly tied to an intepretation of WP:TITLETM or any other policy/guideline.)

Any one of these in isolation probably wouldn't be enough to overturn, but in combination, I think they push it over the line. Colin M (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved) per Colin M and others (same guy closing same topic with bias) and per B2C (the 70% oppose votes may very well have been discounted as "fluff" if an unbiased closer had a look at relevant policies and guidelines and arguments with respect to them). Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse - I don't see a problem with the close and as such fully endorse it (FWIW I did !vote Oppose in both RFCs but I would've endorsed the close regardless of its outcome). –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	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 also

• Category:Pages at move review
• Category:Closed move reviews
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Subpages of this page