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.

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=12 November 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 November}}
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	Move review closed as	Status of RM after MRV close
1. Endorse Close	Not Moved	No Action Required	Closed
2. Endorse Close	Move to new title	No Action Required	Closed
3. Overturn Close	Not Moved	Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM	Open
		Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM	Closed
4. Overturn Close	Move to new title	Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Open
5. Relist	Not Moved	Reopen and relist RM	Open
6. Relist	Move to new title	Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM	Open

 

Active discussions

2019 November

2019 Najran attack

2019 Najran attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Hi, I have tried to talk to Sceptre about this and it has been more than 10 days and he has not responded. If you look at the discussion in the article talk page you will see that I and Applodion agreed that the article should be moved to "Operation victory from God". Amakuru, however, didnt agree on the move and when we responded to his argument he stopped replying. He thought the the attack was in Najran but that was a false media story. Even the Houthis didn't say that the ground attack was in Najran. Notice that he stopped replying after we told him that and proved that him. It seems that his vote was a reaction of this bold move but I cant tell for sure. He also said that the name is POV but didn't explain how it is a POV, it's the name of the operation. In any case the RM should have not be closed with No consensus because there are two editors who have agreed on the move and an editor who stopped responding after proven wrong. I am want to note that the closer talk page is full of complaints about his moves.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

Need help from administrator to control an edit war

Please move this to the correct place, thanks. The problem is Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe. Is there some formal procedure to keep these people polite and organized until a consensus is reached? I was involved once and gave up. The history is very messy, but it seems that there are two distinct problems: 1. multiple move/renames, 2. should the raid list be retained? Given the complexity it might be better to place the discussion off the talk page, if that is possible. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. I read a stronger-than-rough consensus in support of User:Srnec's proposal. I do not approve of the unfamiliar non-admin's close, it was not clear enough, nor of the NAC-er's "and if a better title is agreed upon in the future, the article can be moved again", which can be read as rendering the close unclear and equivocating. Experienced closers never close like that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment / Endorse (involved). The raid list is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with MR and is a normal dispute over article content. For the requested move - what exactly are you looking for? You haven't proposed anything. The RM to be reopened? It moved back to the old title, Tatar raids? Removal of "slave" from the title? User:Devlet Geray moved the article post-RM, which I reverted as not being equivalent to the close, but it's not a move war just yet, just a normal boring revert. SnowFire (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Digital automated identification system

Digital automated identification system (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Moves were proposed, and I objected to the proposed titles on the basis that these are proper names. The discussion was closed without consensus and without relisting, and the pages were moved, based on a misunderstanding of guidelines. Peter James (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Peter James (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn. Premature close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Prince Edward station attack (closed)

2019 October

31 August Prince Edward station incident (closed)

Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America

Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The Boy Scouts of America run several program:

• Main article: Cub Scouting youth advancement
• Main article: Ranks in Scouts BSA
• Main article: Varsity Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) § Advancement and recognition
• Main article: Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) § Recognition

As you can see by these edits, the program name has changed from Boy Scouts to Scouts BSA to reflect the fact that its not just boys anymore. I am proposing a change in the article title to Ranks in Scouts BSA reflect this program change. --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (but reclose as no-consensus) (uninvolved) What was the issue with the close? Move Review is not for rearguing the move. PaleAqua (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the reviewer closed it too early. The responders aren't responding to the facts, but to sentiment. I refuted each of the statements they made factually. --evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The RM ran for the usual 7 days, so do not think it was too early. That said WP:CONSUB should have probably been brought up more directly during the RM. Looks like there current is a conflict in the result of Talk:Scouts BSA#Requested move 5 February 2019 (2) vs this RM. While my initial reaction would be to endorse per the content of the RM itself. Consistency is a strong argument and of equal weight to recognizable, so I am inclined to !vote Endorse (but Reopen). PaleAqua (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think needs to be reclosed as no-consensus to allow a discussion that deals with the naming conflict between the main article Scouts BSA and the sub article Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America. PaleAqua (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't comprehend this decision, PaleAqua, because to the casual eye it seems you "endorse" but recommend "overturning" the not moved closure to "no consensus"? Don't quite get that – am I missing something? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think based on the discussion itself that I fully endorse the closing. That said we are left with a conflict between the pillars, especially between recognizable and consistency given the name of the two related articles made different choices. It seems to me that consistency needs to be given higher standing here and either the main article needs to be reconsider or consistency and CONSUB should be considered in regards to naming this article. Thus the endorse of the close itself while still thinking that there is an open issue that needs to be determined through consensus here and changing the close to no-consensus would allow such a discussion to happen. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse Not only is there no discussion with the RM closer, but this move review request is merely a rehash of the RM discussion, which nobody supported. Even if somehow the nominator was right on the merits of the move, there's no way this could be closed as anything more than no consensus, given that the opposes are policy based. Iffy★Chat -- 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The opposes are not policy based. A good link to show the actual name is here, Advancement_and_recognition_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Scouts_BSA and look at the Eagle Scout application and you will see that the BSA itself has rebranded the program. Also, Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES - "we choose the commonly recognisable name used in reliable sources after the name change is announced."
    "Google search using Scouts BSA". shows that the name is now activley being used.--evrik ^(talk) 21:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My apologies to @Paine Ellsworth:, but their talk page said they were on a wikibreak. --evrik ^(talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• What's with the gaudy close box? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's an alternative way to close RMs that uses the template {{subst:Requested move/end}}, which I've updated. The "gaudy box" is essentially the same as the box that is at the top of open RMs. I choose to close with that template in part because of the handy log links at the bottom left of the box. Those links are lost when closers remove the {{Requested move/dated}} template. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For what its worth, I think it is too big, to colorful, too much big bold text, too attention grabbing for an archive. Gaudy. Visually, it looks more attention grabbing than a usual open RM discussion. Two in rapid sequence is twice as bad. Generally, I think banners and colors should be used very sparingly, and only when there is good reason to attract widespread attention. It is similar to Alarm fatigue. I am fatigued before even reading the words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC) ^{compare with}

• Endorse <uninvolved>: the only time it's acceptable to start a new RM that quickly is if something has substantially changed or the first discussion resulted in a no consensus closure which implies no prejudice against speedy renomination. The first RM had a clear determination of consensus, so a speedy procedural close is the right way to go IMHO. SITH (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what this venue is....a place to debate the proposed move/renaming? Boy Scouts of America renamed one of it's programs from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts BSA". The above discussion leaves the impression that this fact is disputed (it is not) and also leaves the impression that such is the central question regarding the potential renaming (IMHO it is not). IMHO the main issue is that the topic of the article applies to multiple programs of the organization which was and is named Boy Scouts of America, i.e. not just for the program which was renamed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Mariner (closed)

Muslim conquest of Persia (closed)

Death penalty for homosexuality (closed)

After All (The Miracles song) (closed)

2019 August

General American English

General American English (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closed as consensus to move while the !votes were six to six. The closer apparently found that 1) supporters' rationales were significantly stronger generally than opposers', and 2) responses of supporters to opposers (generally) were very effective rebuttals in my humble opinion, but that seems like all the more reason to !vote themselves or relist than to close in favor of the proposal. Nardog (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Automatic endorse / reject MRV proposal. We do not vote-count for move requests at Wikipedia. And this is not just something we say, but something we actually hold to. Closers are supposed to gauge consensus based on the strength of the arguments presented. I did support the move (so I'm involved) but I rabidly endorse this and any other close like this for deciding which side had the stronger arguments instead of just counting votes. The closer did literally exactly what RM closers are supposed to do. Red Slash 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Closers are supposed to gauge consensus based on the validity of arguments with respect to Wikipedia's policies. Both sides made arguments based on existing policies. Neither side compelled anyone on the other. That's a textbook example of no consensus. Nardog (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  As an aside, consider me severely unconvinced regarding the validity of the arguments against the move. But of course, I already made my decision when I decided to participate. I therefore took a side and became biased. An unbiased observer with years and years of experience determined the consensus. I have full confidence in that decision and I repeat that I would have full confidence if he had seen things either way. Any closer who puts that much thought into it pretty much always is making a defensible close. Again, we're unable to and unwilling to decide what the "right" decision is - we can't! We're looking to see if the closure was clearly off-base. Red Slash 23:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, closers are supposed to gauge consensus, which is exactly what happened. WP:Consensus is not a vote. At the same time, WP:SILENCE of any party after new arguments are made in the discussion should not be read as opposition to those arguments. Per RMCLOSE, Paine Ellsworth evaluated the arguments, assigned due weight to each, and gave due consideration to community consensus (in this case WP:DISAMBIG and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). That both sides claimed a basis in policy for their position doesn't mean that policies actually support both positions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unsure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Meh Endorse. <involved; I !voted in support of the proposed move which was enacted>

  The previous had the serious criticism of failing to define the topic, which although not agreed by all, is way more serious than any criticism of the new title (eg has a superfluous word; uses a non-ideal word "English" versus "accent").

  I recommend accepting the close, leaving it for at least two months, and then allowing anyone to propose a new change, hopefully done with a comprehensive and persuasive rationale. I don't think there is anything here worth another case of three months reviewing of a close.

  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: So you agree that consensus has not rejected the former title, yet you endorse the closure? Nardog (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  Why do you link the closer's talk page? That's for pre-clarifications between the DRV nominator and the closer and I don't think it is relevant to the record, which is Talk:General American English#Requested move 2 August 2019. There, the closer wrote: "Moved. See strong arguments below in support of a page move away from the current title..." I am obviously biased, that being precisely my own position, but I didn't know that was even in contention. I read a rough consensus in agreement with myself that the former title was rejected. I endorse the close as correctly enacting a move away from the former title, and putting it at the formally proposed title, which happened to also be the more popularly preferred of the two competing proposal, General American accent having been informally introduced mid-discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: You said Agree on the talk immediately below my comment Fair enough, but I fail to see that "consensus has rejected the former title". Who/what were you agreeing with then? Nardog (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, I also find that puzzling, SmokeyJoe. It's fine that you supported this move, but your comments here should be based on the content of the whole discussion and the closing rationale, not just your own !vote. In particular, the assertion that the former title was rejected is extremely dubious. Having a further discussion down the line would be fine if there were actually a consensus to move in the first place, but really there was not.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  I’ve been equivocating on whether the move was justified. Was there a consensus to move away from the previous title, no. Was there a rough consensus to move away from the previous title, I think yes. But I was involved, with a strong dislike of the previous title, I did not recognise it at all as referring to accent/dialect/language. I find it a bit frustrating that yet again an NAC will result in a long tedious review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. Unfortunately there was a lot of badgering and bludgeoning and so on by some within the "oppose" camp, which is not ideal and WP:TROUT to them for that because it makes it hard to read the discussion. But that shouldn't in itself take away from the arguments they were making. Fundamentally this is a dispute between WP:COMMONNAME, which is acknowledged to be "General American" vs WP:RECOGNIZE, which holds that it was not obvious from the previous title what the subject might be, in particular that it might be confused for a company of some sort. As was pointed out in the discussion, though, the actual wording of RECOGNIZE is that The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Thus it doesn't have to be recognizable to an outsider who's never heard of the topic at all. Regarding the close itself, I'm unclear what its basis for seeing consensus to move is. The closing statement says "any of the companies mentioned can be called "General American", the term's ambiguity has been established, so using the name as the title of a disambiguation page is a definite consideration" but does not say emphatically that the disambiguation page must be moved, and does not address the question of whether the accent is primary topic for General American either. Overall, with three !votes on either side, and clear policy reasons for both supporting and opposing (in particular LiliCharlie's detailed run-through of the 5 WP:CRITERIA and why the previous title satisfied them), so this cannot possibly be anything other than a no consensus, it's not within the margin of doubt where closer's judgement could kick in. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Back in the old days, a single uninvolved admin thinking “overturn” meant they would unilaterally revert the nonadmin close. I think we should return to that standard, nonadmins should not be closing discussions that an admin might close another way. Either that, or they should revert on the first objection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well perhaps... but admins are not infallible either, so we'd have to tread with caution. Currently the process makes virtually no distinction between nonadmins and admins at all, which probably isn't quite right as you say. But equally it's been said many times that allowing non admins to perform the closes helps groom them and hone their skills for when they do have a crack at getting the mop. I spent many years closing RMs before being an admin, and by early 2016 I was actually doing a majority of the closes if I recall correctly, both close calls and no brainers. I do think that nonadmins (and admins too, for that matter) need to be circumspect and willing to examine and revise their thinking, or reopen a discussion, if legitimate challenges are made. For me that should have happened here, because with a split vote and very clear and stated policy reasons why Oppose was a legitimate choice, the decision to close as move rather than casting a support vote can't be very readily defended IMHO. To go back to your point here, probably some middle ground is the way forward, where its clear that nonadmin closes are subject to greater scrutiny and can be more readily challenged than admin ones, but without going to the length of saying one admin can overturn the whole thing on a whim... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  On a whim, certainly not. Did you just !vote “overturn” on a whim? Do you have in mind any current active admin who would act on a whim? Especially noting the RFC that firmly established the previously understood practice that admins can’t revert a close merely because it was a non admin close.

  Definitely, nonadmins should continue to be encouraged to do suitable nonadmin closes, and their judgement will be evidence at their future RfA. You and a couple of others have pointed to your own pre-RfA closes, good, but the obvious question is: were your pre-RfA closes a help or a hindrance? Did you perform adventurous closes that were then criticised by then-admins in lengthy follow up discussions. I submit that the proof of a BADNAC is subsequent controversy. I also note the RfA test for temperament, not just ability to read a consensus, temperament which goes to accepting criticism and modifying future behaviour. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  OK, I think everything you say is very sensible. We had two move reviews in July that were both overturned eventually and might fit your definition of BADNAC. It would be really nice if closers could amend their closes themselves when something like this happens, or consult an experienced admin when the first query is made, rather than us having to constantly go down the lengthy MRV route. I would always be happy to provide advice. But if they refuse to do this, you'll either have to propose a new rule governing this through an RFC, or we'll just have to accept that we end up in these lengthy reviews. It doesn't help thay MRV generally seems poorly attended right now. Only three participants here, and it's almost two weeks old  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Um, what's this about a lot of badgering and bludgeoning and so on by some within the "oppose" camp? I'm presuming you're referring (at least in part) to myself. I recognize that the discussion may have been hard to follow, but it's hard to see this as being a result of one-sided bludgeoning. If you'd like to explain how my and LiliCharlie's behavior constitutes bludgeoning while that of Sangdeboeuf, who responded to every single "oppose" vote (sometimes with walls of text), does not, I'm open to listening.

  I'm also skeptical that there is any example of badgering on the part of anyone in the "oppose" camp that rises to the level of Sangdeboeuf repeatedly demanding that I provide links to dozens of JSTOR articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  User:Aeusoes1 yeah, you're right I guess. There was at least one supporter who felt the need to answer every !vote as well, and there was some dialogue going on too. I'm striking that part of my comment as it's not particularly relevant anyway in this case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  It's not just RECOGNIZE vs. COMMONNAME. As quoted above, P.I. Ellsworth specifically mentioned that "General American" is ambiguous, so WP:PRECISE applies also. There can be a separate discussion as to whether we have a primary topic or not, in which case "General American" may still make sense as a redirect to a more precise title.

  Since LiliCharlie's rundown of the 5 naming criteria was mentioned, I'll just point out that "General American" being recognizable to them as "someone familiar with the subject area" really has nothing to do with recognizability by non-experts, given that they describe themselves as "a phonetician who has read thousands of pages about" the topic. (A couple of their other points were also questionable, as I pointed out during the RM discussion.) Just because they mentioned a policy doesn't imply that the policy actually supports their position. Not all !votes are equal, and the closer specifically explained on their talk page how they assigned weight to the supporting and opposing arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by closer. Still endorse my close; however, it seems that some editors here think I was in the wrong because a) I did not immediately revert my close when challenged, and b) well, I'm not an admin. As to b, we all know that can't be used by itself to reverse the close, and as to a), as noted on my talk page, the nominator of this MRV had questions and I answered them. Then, all of a sudden blam! we find ourselves here at MRV. Neither the nom nor anybody else made any mention nor inquiry for me to reverse the decision, which I am inclined to do when asked. So maybe Smokey Joe or Amakuru or somebody, anybody, can explain to me how exactly that makes me responsible for another long-drawn-out MRV? I didn't bring us here and would have cheerfully avoided it had the nom but asked. I have many skills; however, mindreading is not among them. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth: What do you mean by that? You can still withdraw the closure and reopen the RM (not that you would), can't you? What could have taken place had I not taken it here? Nardog (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm getting the impression that PE is saying they would have done so if you'd asked in just the right way but, since you started the MRV process, they are no longer inclined to do so. It also appears they expect us to believe that the thread in their talk page did not lead them to believe you wanted them to reverse their decision. It's hard to accept that someone trusted with gleaning consensus from complex threads would have trouble with something so obvious. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Obvious? glad you think so. It was obvious Nardog was unhappy with the outcome; however, Nardog was not the only editor involved in the RM nor in the discussion on my talk page. You seem to say that one editor's opinion against the opinions of others should be considered a "consensus"? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That's certainly an oddball interpretation of what I said. I was making reference to Neither the nom nor anybody else made any mention nor inquiry for me to reverse the decision, which I am inclined to do when asked. If I'm misreading what you've written, please clarify. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  PE is saying they would have done so if you'd asked in just the right way

  I am saying I would have done so if they'd asked at all, or even just suggested that I reverse.

  they expect us to believe that the thread in their talk page did not lead them to believe you wanted them to reverse their decision

  The thread on my talk page was the expression of "disbelief" in Nardog's own words. That was not a surprise since Nardog opposed the requested move. There were others in that discussion who had supported the action who said I did the right thing. In such situations, one only has what is on the written page. And yet, even with all that, all Nardog had to do was ask or suggest. They did neither. Anything else is telepathy, and I'm not very good at that. Misreading? I don't know, but wouldn't that be unfortunate. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Fair, but I also wish you said to me right away, "Oh, I didn't realize you were asking me to revise the outcome. I actually am willing to revise the outcome, so you can withdraw that MRV now", so all this wouldn't have needed to happen. Nardog (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming, PE. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nardog, you never asked me to reverse that decision amid other editors telling me it was the best decision of my life. Had you just said, "I think you should consider reopening and relisting," I would have been glad to do so. You laid MRV on us out of the blue against the consensus on my talk page. And when MRV is opened, then I consider it to be out of my hands and in the hands of reviewers. All you had to do was ask, or even just suggest that I reverse. As I said, I cannot read your mind. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Paine actually makes a good point here. Nardog said in the discussion "Anyway, I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome, so I'm filing for a move review" even though they'd never actually asked for a revision of the outcome, just an explanation for the close. That means the MRV was premature. In any case, it is definitely not too late to revise it now - Paine Ellsworth I suggest you do so now, which will save this MRV from dragging on and on for another month. If you really feel that you have a good argument for moving from "General American" to "General American English" then relist the discussion now, for another week, and cast a support !vote for that outcome. But the original discussion does not have consensus yet for that conclusion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, Amakuru! I agree that there was no consensus for the new title. I saw support rationales that were just strong enough to indicate that the previous title was no longer acceptable; however, they were not strong enough to be consensus for any particular other title. So the choice of title was mine alone, which is why I mentioned the clause in the closing instructions. The thrust here, though, is to return to the old title, a decision which "should not be made lightly" according to the instructions. WP:MRV is very clear, so I don't think it's up to me now. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Paine Ellsworth: Neither can I yours. I didn't realize you didn't realize I was asking for revising the outcome. But what difference would it have made? You seemed determined about it, as you do now. So if I hadn't taken this here, would you have withdrawn the closure? Or would you have just "considered" it? Nardog (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  I may have seemed determined to you because you were the only editor in the discussion on my talk page who didn't like the outcome. Other editors, including one editor who was uninvolved in the RM discussion, thought I had done a good job with the close. I knew you preferred a different outcome, but other editors were pretty emphatic that they preferred the outcome as I had closed it. To answer your question, if you had explicitly asked me to revise the close, or even if you had just suggested that I revise the close, I like to think that would have done so without hesitation. Instead, you played the MRV card you opened this MRV, so I don't think it's up to me anymore, it's up to the reviewers of this MRV, all of whom have a stake in the outcome. As soon as contention is shown in any discussion, withdrawal is no longer an option, and editors here should decide the outcome. Of course, I will go along with whatever consensus is garnered here. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't play any "card". There is no such thing as playing a card because Wikipedia is not about winning. Which part of I take your response as an indication of no intention to revise the outcome did you not understand? I took it to MRV because I believed that was the only further step I could take. And you had the chance to tell me it was not, and you didn't. "Contention" was already "shown" when I asked you for an explanation, if there was any. You're pulling that out of nowhere. Nardog (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Just an expression – text revised. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Paine_Ellsworth. I think it would be helpful if you would restate here: Why the discussion should be read as supporting a move away from the previous title”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course. I read support rationales that appeared to be stronger than the oppose rationales. The supports seemed strong enough to represent a consensus (at least a rough one) to discard the old title; however, they were not strong enough to be consensus to move to the title requested. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • For what it is worth, which is little because I am biased, I find that agreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much, SmokeyJoe! It might be worth little to others, but it means a lot to me. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @SmokeyJoe: how do you find that agreeable? The statement does not mention which applicable policies were consulted in determining that the support !votes were stronger. It does not explain why points made by those opposing were incorrect. Surely for a non-admin close not to be what you usually call a "BADNAC", it should at the very least be crystal clear why the consensus is seen, and furthermore preferably not be controversial. Why do you think this case is different from others? As a neutral, and someone who really doesn't mind one way or the other whether the previous or the current title is chosen, I'm honestly trying to understand why there was a consensus for a move, but I just don't see it based on the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, ideally Paine would have elaborated on why certain rationales were stronger, and why others were weaker. The perfect answer doesn’t include the word “I”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Not sure why you don't see the ambiguity of the old title. It was documented in the RM discussion, in my close and on my talk page. That was what stuck in my craw the first time I read the RM, and it should stick in your craw, too. That title, "General American", should probably be the base name of a disambiguation page, or the title of a primary redirect or ptopic article if appropriate. That is something that made the support for the page move somewhat stronger than the opposition. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Respectfully, Paine, the fact that other don't people see it and you do, is exactly why this angle belongs in a vote, not in a closing summary. The ambiguity angle was mentioned in one comment, and one or two other topics, such as GATX and General American Marks Company were brought up, but at no stage was it shown that those were sufficient to take the primary topic away from the accent. The onus of proof in an RM is for those wishing to make the move to show reasons, while the default is to retain the status quo. Actually, " from a simple Google search it seems like the accent is overwhelmingly the primary topic, so a really good case would have to be made to achieve consensus on those grounds, one that simply wasn't made in the discussion that took place. The opposers citing of common name was more than enough to offset the unproven assertion that the term was ambiguous. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
              • The ambiguity angle was specifically mentioned in two supporting !votes, and given Red Slash's later explanation of their !vote ("The two-word title does not convey enough information to describe the topic"), we can assume they were concerned with ambiguity as well. So clearly some people besides P.I. Ellsworth do see it, just not the ones objecting to the move. (I'm not sure how you'd "prove" ambiguity exists, but a source cited extensively in the article is even called "General American: An Ambiguity", for crying out loud.)
                During the RM I mentioned five separate topics described somewhere on Wikipedia called "General American", not one or two. The fact that some users didn't respond to this point, despite extensive discussion afterward, isn't an argument for the status quo.
                Popularity on Google can support a term being primary for usage, but that isn't the only criterion for determining a primary topic. Nor does it rule out retaining General American as a redirect. You're bringing up things that were not discussed in the RM at all. As I understand it, MRV is supposed to focus on the actual discussion that took place, along with existing policies. If you have your own arguments to make against the move, then you should wait a while and then open another RM discussion instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • Pinging Red Slash since the earlier ping wasn't formatted correctly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • Just to clarify, there's ambiguity with e.g. General American Investors and ambiguity as to what particular linguistic topic is referred to. The article cited is not talking about the former. No source has been identified as addressing that particular ambiguity. I'm assuming that the closer was motivated by the former, rather than the latter, since Sangdeboeuf and I had come to an agreement (AFAIKT) that General American English also has ambiguity in the linguistic literature on par with the linguistic ambiguity cited for General American. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • Not to rehash the RM, but we don't need a source to prove the ambiguity of a given title with respect to other Wikipedia pages. I mention Van Riper's paper to show that the term would be ambiguous even without those other topics. Apologies for any confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘You don't need a source to demonstrate ambiguity, but you certainly need some evidence that the accent topic is no longer the *primary topic* for the term in question. There were only two mentions of ambiguity with other Wiki articles in the whole debate, as far as I can see - the first by IJBall, who cited a failure to meet WP:PRECISE, but when requested to clarify what they meant, they rather rudely accused those asking the question of bludgeoning. Sangdeboeuf then pointed out that General American Investors Company and General American Marks Company were potentially ambiguous topics - a legitimate point, but one which was not backed up with evidence that these topics could possibly challenge the primary topic status of the accent. Certainly this point was not widely addressed in the discussion as a whole, and cannot be taken as consensus at all. If Paine Ellsworth was persuaded that there was ambiguity and that the previous topic was not primary topic, then they should have cast a support !vote making that clear, rather than making a WP:SUPERVOTE citing an issue that was barely discussed in the RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I was very careful to not give the appearance of !supervoting in my closing comment, and I consider that to be a serious allegation. As SmokeyJoe might say, I've said too much. So shutting up now. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 11:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my above comment is not an accusation of bad faith on your part, Paine, so you shouldn't regard it as a "serious allegation". Everyone accepts that there is a continuum between a smart close which is against the !vote count, but based on policy, on the one hand, versus making a supervote on the other. I'm sure that your close was intended to be the former, which is fine. All I'm saying is that in my opinion you were mistaken about that, and that you have inadvertently, and in good faith, cast a supervote in the close. There's no blame or shame in that, but obviously we're here at MRV to get to the bottom of whether there really was any policy-based consensus for a move or not. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn to (no consensus) I don't see the strength in the arguments for the closing assertion of being ambiguous. In particular basing the arguments on the assumption that companies could be referred to by shortening the name to "General American" seems like it would require more evidence then just an assertion. In fact the referenced Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches does not seem to require that partial titles be listed as disambiguations. PaleAqua (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by a Eurasian editor who was involved and !voted nay (i.e., one of those called "opposers" in this thread):

I do not understand how someone can say "all Nardog had to do was ask or suggest".

Explanation: My parents are from different countries, Germany and China. In both of those countries (none of which is under “common law”) asking for an explanation for a decision cannot possibly be understood as a request not to change the decision made. Legally speaking, any official who does not at least ask if such a question is meant to be (wikt:umdeuten) a request that a new decision be made, risks being fired. (Some did get fired. — I'm only talking about Germany and Mainland China; see, for instance de:Antragsrecht.) Nardog did ask for an explanation why this decision was taken; how can someone acting on behalf of en.WP (i.e., someone not bound by national legal practice) not suspect that what they meant was: please rethink and undo! Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• To LiliCharlie and Nardog: that does sound very reasonable, and I may have been wrong. The consensus on my talk page, which included comments from an editor who was uninvolved in the RM discussion, indicated to me that I had made the correct decision. Perhaps that blinded me to Nardog's implied request. If that is the case, then I surely owe Nardog an apology. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn, unfortunately. This was a line call and it appears the closer agrees they'd have been open to revisiting if they had understood that to be the intention of the user who brought it up on their talk page. As the discussion is stale I don't see the point in relisiting it, so I'd just overturn to no consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Looking closely at the discussion and close, Paine Ellsworth has found a "consensus against" the title, General American, but no consensus for the proposal, General American English or alternatives. Their actions and close are consistent with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. PE has given the need for disambiguation as the determining factor. Looking at the subject, I observe that it is an attributive noun phrase that describes a dialect|accent|variety of English. It is frequently used in such a construction but also, it is used where the noun being described is implied. As such, it is a shortened form of one of those constructions and may be considered jargon[ish]. "General American" may be concise but it is not precise, though it may be perceived to be by those that use the jargon. This is one of the arguements being made (though not in the same words) and one which I would find compelling - and more so, when considering the matter of ambiguity. There is inconsistency in arguing against the DAB for other shortended forms when this page is a shortended form.

It is not surprising that the close has been challenged, given the vehemence with which some have argued their position. An arguement to overturn premised on the statement, !votes were six to six, fundamentally ignores that consensus is based upon strength of arguement (WP:NHC). I also note this statement from the closer's TP: You found arguments on one side stronger, fine, but when the !votes are split precisely in half, that seems like good reason to !vote yourself or relist, not to close in favor of that side. I'm scratching my head. Sure, not everybody likes where it got moved to but that is not the point. The OP of this reveiw has not raised concerns IAW the advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for a move or a close more generally. What should be happening is a discussion to move the article to another alternative per the close. Finally, asking a closer to clarify their close does not imply that a closer is being asked to revert their close. If one is asking for clarification, then that is what is being asked. I was uninvolved in the discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

While I concede that I'm not without fault strictly in terms of procedure, do you agree with the closure itself, namely that there was consensus against the former title? Nardog (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Per my first para, I would find the arguements for the move (ie away from the existing title) to be compelling. It is therefore not unreasonable to afford them weight for a finding of consensus against the former title. I also note, from WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result. So, describing it as a line call would actually appear to be a statement of endorsement. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Looking through the RM there seems to be consensus against the former title and a weak consensus to move. While the closing statement isn't ideal, it's correct. The participants found the opposition less compelling than the supports and so the closer should give less weight to the opposition. While the numbers are split, most of the opposition was early while supports came after significant debate showing that editors who came to the discussion later did not view the opposition arguments as strong. There is definitely no consensus for the page to remain where it was, and given the late supports I would say there is even weak consensus in favor of its current title. Ideally the discussion should have been relisted to make that clear, or the closer should have given an opinion in support rather than closing the discussion. But we're here now and I don't think the outcome is off base. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

See also

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