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=10 August 2022}}. 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/2022 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 closer's 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 uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the MRV closer 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 MRV closer 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"; MRV closers 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 MRV closer 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, and reopen and relist RM if appropriate	Open
5. Relist	Not Moved	Reopen and relist RM	Open
6. Relist	Move to new title	Move title back to pre-RM title, and reopen and relist RM	Open

 

Active discussions

2022 August

Fatima

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

The daughter of Muhammad was moved to occupy the base name at Fatima, which was previously a dab page. A lot of the supporting comments only dealt with the issue of common name of the historical figure. They didn't explain why it should be the primary topic. Some did consider the primary topic issue and they showed page views that supported their view. However, some editors found that data problematic because it excluded Our Lady of Fátima, which has similar page views to the daughter of Muhammad. There was also data from google books that showed overwhelmingly the Portuguese town of Fátima to be the primary topic, with eight results vs just one for the historical figure out of the first ten results. As an aside, it could be argued the results were not about the Portuguese town but about the Sanctuary of Fátima or Our Lady of Fátima. The three topics are very closely related, which is why removing one of them from the page views is problematic. But the most important piece of evidence in my opinion was from wikinav. It clearly showed that most readers who landed on the dab page then clicked on the Portuguese town. We are now redirecting those readers to a page they are not looking for. With all evidence available, it is very hard to argue the historical figure is the primary topic. Also hard to see how the move will improve the reader experience. The evidence against the move was just dismissed as "incomplete" and not properly evaluated. A fair evaluation of the evidence should result in not moved or at least no consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor statements (Fatima)

• Could have been closed either as “no consensus” or “rough consensus to move”. Unqualified consensus, no. Non admins should not be doing these contentious closes; if you hold the experience and respect to exercise admin discretion in closing, prove it by passing RfA. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  For such a borderline close, the closer’s explanation is inadequate, admin or not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the closer should have given a more detailed explanation, even though I endorse the closure. WP:RMNAC allows for experienced users to close RMs and I think the closer in this case is experienced enough.VR _talk 04:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  “allows” doesn’t mean it is wise. RMNAC may not be the source of wisdom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like WP:BADNAC#3 might apply here. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Endorse closure. Vpab's contention that "Our Lady of Fátima" might be a contender for "Fatima" was responded to by Iskandar323, Albertiran etc during the RM with the argument that RS do not call generally refer to Our Lady of Fátima as simply "Fatima", hence it is not relevant. Vpab's contention that "But the most important piece of evidence in my opinion was from wikinav" was disputed by several users who convincingly pointed out that there is more than one way of determining primary topic. The latter opinion is supported by WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which lists several ways of determining primary topic. In this case, pageviews and google scholar were used to show Fatima as the primary topic. Vpab did try to use the first 10 results in google books as evidence, but given the thousands of hits for Fatima looking at just 10 results seems pretty weak (Apaugasma, by contrast, suggested looking at 100). In the end, it seems most users, by a margin of 2:1, considered Fatima to be the primarytopic (Iskandar, BD2412, Albertiran, Nableezy, Mhhossein, Al Ameer and possibly Srnec) vs a few who didn't (Vpab, Uanfala, Crouch Swale). That constitutes WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS.VR _talk 04:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think DETERMINEPRIMARY allows you to choose which pieces of evidence to consider and which to ignore. That is called cherry picking and it is just not acceptable. Vpab15 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, nobody claimed google scholar supported Fatimah as the primary topic. Quite the contrary. Apaugasma said: I think Vpab15 may be right: from both Google scholar (filtering out authors with the name 'Fatima') and Google Books, it would seem that there are enough Our Lady of Fátima-related results (as well as result pertaining to Fatima Mernissi) to conclude that the daughter of the prophet Muhammad is not the primary topic. Vpab15 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The calling of a rough consensus is limited to administrators. NACs have to constrain themselves to consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Gentle reminder that one reason I sometimes close backlogged, contentious RMs is because presently admins are limited to 1,030. That magic number of mostly hard-working editors is less than 1% of active users (113,764), so I figure... why waste all that larnin' I've picked up when I can be of help. As for RfA, as you know I've been there, done that, and I'm too old not ready to do that again. Yes, I do realize that for every contentious decision I make, probably at least one is threatened by an editor to take to MRV. But with my boyish charm and good looks I can usually convince that editor I'm right. All that means is that I rarely find one of my closures here even though I close the tough ones on a regular basis. I'm not perfect by any means; however, must be doin' sumpin' right, b'gosh b'golly!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:Paine Ellsworth, you, like a very few, are a well-experienced NAC-er. I’m wondering about a possible process for experienced NAC-ers to close contentious backlogged discussions like this: (1) When it is ready to be closed, list it at WP:ANRFC, noting it to be a backlogged, completed but contentious discussion (thus warning and advising other experienced NAC-ers); then (2) if it remains listed there 7 days (168 hours) and no admin has closed it, you may close it, even invoking the normally admin-limited “WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS” style of closing.

  Separate question: Do you admit that others may see the discussion not as an unqualified “consensus”, but as a “rough consensus”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Others may indeed see the RM as a rough consensus, because that's what it was, as noted on my talk page. However, consensus is consensus whether it's rough or unqualified, and that RM's consensus, while rough, just wasn't all that rough. And it was in my mind most certainly a consensus to move.

  As for your idea to give admins a better crack at the tough calls, it might be a good idea and worth a try; and yet, that is what the backlog section on the WP:RM page is for. Closers are given plenty of time to decide whether or not they want to close any given RM. Special handling designed to persuade admins to close a contentious RM is probably unnecessary. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Rough consensus is not the same as consensus, and your assertion otherwise is a worry, in regards to your competence to call a consensus in contentious cases.

  Days on, the RM closing statement is still inadequate, and I am leaning starlight “overturn” due to the brevity of the closing statement alone. Better explanations on your talk page does not suffice. Would you like to amend your close, or stand by it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  What I say here or on my talk page doesn't or shouldn't matter. Agree with me that the close was reasonable, or not, either way you teach me. Good lord willin' and the creeks don't rise, we'll both still be here tomorrow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I see that I read conflict between your statements that you wouldn’t have intended. At the RM you assert there was a consensus. On your talk page you assert it was a rough consensus. Here, you repeat what you wrote on the talk page. My problem is that the RM was, at best, a rough consensus to move, and your closing statement does not say that but asserts a consensus. My advice to you, in order to smooth this over, is for you to improve tha closing statement, and then invite any admin you counter sign your close, which puts and end to any BADNAC allegations. I suspect that the over-brief declaration of an unqualified consensus prevents any admin from countersigning your close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct in that I did not intend there to be any conflict. My close noted consensus, which my analysis did uncover. I did note on my talk page and in the post-RM commentary that it was a tough call, which it was. I am not conflicted about the close, I am merely conflicted that my usage of "rough consensus" to equate to "tough call", may have been misunderstood by editors other than the two most ardent opposers of the page moves. So to be clear, imho the RM survey and discussion yielded an unqualified consensus to move the pages. It was a tough call due to the compelling rationales of the opposers; however, the even more compelling arguments of the supporters tipped the scales. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 10:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). First, just to clear what wasn't the main point of contention out of the way: Participating editors reached a consensus that Fatima is the common spelling, and that it was best not to rely on using the spelling Fatimah to distinguish the topic from other topics. The disagreement was mainly over the primary topic. Participants considered many factors, including whether to discount certain topics (mainly Our Lady of Fátima) as partial title matches, page views, Wikinav, Google Books search results (and to a lesser extent Google Scholar), and long-term significance. Editors can exercise significant judgment in evaluating and weighing the various forms of evidence, among which none takes absolute priority over any other. While there is a scale between reasonable judgment and unreasonable "cherry picking", in this case the position in favor of the move was adequately supported by reasoned explanation (as Vice regent writes in more detail above). The closure should be upheld. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Addendum: Although it's not directly relevant to the review of this closure, I'll add that editors are free to start another RM about Fatima bint Muhammad. The 16 July 2022 RM had no consensus and much lower participation, and the 24 July 2022 RM mostly stayed focused on the Fatima proposal. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: Supporters, citing WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, contested opposers' general conclusion that Wikinav data is the most relevant and page view data is largely irrelevant. (DETERMINEPRIMARY, by the way, is not one of those cases where written guidelines and de facto community practice are divergent.) If opposers' conclusion is at odds with DETERMINEPRIMARY, then one should reconsider the premises that led to that conclusion. Usage is about what readers are seeking; I think that is generally agreed. However, supporters made the point that the guidelines do not require usage to be narrowly construed as readers searching/arriving in a particular way, and readers looking in a particular way are not necessarily representative of interested readers more broadly. These points are valid. Opposers took a narrower view of what can properly count as usage. It is one thing for opposers to argue for the merits of that interpretation; it is another thing to argue that it is the one true interpretation and that a closer is compelled to discount any view to the contrary. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  On the one hand you dismiss wikinav data because it gives a narrower view of what can properly count as usage. Yet on the other you take the narrow view that Our Lady of Fátima should not be included in the page views analysis. You also take the narrow view that only pageviews are significant and google scholar and google books evidence can also be dismissed. I find that very contradictory. Vpab15 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  But that wider interpretation of usage is not in the guidelines. The primary topic for a term is defined there as one that is most likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. What matters is readers who search for that term, not readers who have arrived via a link, and not readers who search for other, similar, terms. Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (uninvolved). Whilst this does seem like WP:BADNAC#3 potentially to me, if I was forced to determine the outcome I'd have gone with WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS (though I am also not an admin). As per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, tools "may help to support the determination of a primary topic", but there was more support for moving than not moving, and there was a significant level of participation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Involved editor comments (Fatima)

• I opposed the move and I see the close as blatantly incorrect. An article got promoted to a primary topic despite the absence of agreement that it has greater long-term significance and, surreally, in spite of the fact that it accounts for less than 20% of the usage (as shown by Wikinav). A lot of bizarre claims around that usage were made by some supporters of the move (for example, that we should ignore the actual data on what readers seek on Wikipedia and instead rely on what we imagine that data could look like if we were judging from unreliable and indirect proxies, or that because an article is the primary topic for one term it should also be the primary topic for another term, etc.), but nothing that made any sense. It's abundantly clear that there's no primary topic for the term, and the only thing that needs to be decided is how best to disambiguate the title. Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Vice regent and Adumbrativus: your statements above seem to imply that you'd support a change to the guidelines so that a primary topic with respect to usage is no longer understood as the one that's sought by the majority of readers, but as the topic that has the most hits on the internet or the one whose article is the most popular. Is that correct? Uanfala (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• The second RM had more involvement than the first, although the underlying motivation of each was the same. I wonder if it wouldn't be best to have an RFC on the two options, Fatima and Fatima bint Muhammad? I am fine with Muhammad's daughter as PT, but it is a close call and I would be equally fine with Fatimah moved to Fatima bint Muhammad and Fatima left alone. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• involved I think there was a consensus to move to "Fatima" but it seems less clear for primary topic so perhaps should have been moved to something like Fatima (Muhammad's daughter) as even some supporting didn't appear sure about primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Periodic table infobox templates

Category:Periodic table infobox templates (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

Category:Element data sets (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

Category:Element data sets/overviews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

Category:Infobox element per element (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

About this CfD (4 categories). Closer Qwerfjkl did not process arguments appropriately, since the argument "proposed new names do not reflect category content, i.e., they are wrong" was not weighted at value. The claim them being incorrect names was not challenged or disputed. With this, hard to see how a consensus can be called to ignore a stated error. (I posted that argument). -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• (by participant in discussion) During the discussion, requests for substantation of the claim that it was an error were ignored by OP, by so-called lack of time. At the same time they did find more than enough time to bludgeon the discussion and now to iniate a move review. This is borderline obstruction of the process. Imho the discussion could not have closed in any other way. By the way, in a fresh discussion, OP can still propose a better alternative if they are willing to provide proper argumentation, so nothing is lost by this closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: "so-called lack of time" and "found time top bludgeon the disussion ,.. borderline obstruction" is asperging bad faith—please redact. I already had to ask you about this in the CfD; now please stop it.

  Re: Now, the "substantiate or else"-reasoning is not warranted. The category situation is complicated, and this is adstructed by the fact that no editors started to research this themselves. Why not conclude: "Ah, if that's the situation, let's find better names first"? If editors cannot accept the "wrong names"-claim at face value, why would alternative names be accepted as proof? And, a proof provided by the very editor they express distrust in? In short, re Marcocapelle: how does current absence of alternative names make the new names correct? DePiep (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  These are grave BF accusations. Enough of this. Marcocapelle makes explicit accusations of bad faith towards me, and after being challenged still has not based nor redacted; that means they are intentionally; imprecision is no excuse any more. It shows intentionally misreading my posts (so-called, bludgeon the discussion); and earlier in the CfD for example I am surprised this opposition comes up only now. That is: casting aspergions. Meanwhile—that is, in between their posts there and here, they did WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT not respond to actual contentual responses and questions. For example, already I have noted that the XfD process does not allow for guaranteed extra time, and had Mc been interested in such improvements they could expressed that by !voting "fair enough, close unchangeing & back to the Talkpage for constructive development". And "you did not gave better nammes so I !vote for the bad ones" is nonsensical. Marcocapelle has shown that even had I (or someone else, why should it have to be me?) had I proposed acually better names, Mc would have ignored their rationalisation and would not have supported those anyway. Too much self-contradiction in there, and PA's are preventing us (poster self-included) from discerning & improving any useful argumentation. Concluding: since Marcocapelle spoiled their own arguments with BF accusations and aspergions, I reqeust any closing administrator (and any editor visiting here) to strike their posts and ignore as if not written. -DePiep (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). A few editors argued that the proposed names are more accurate and easier to understand, particularly regarding a relationship with Template:Infobox element. Another editor argued to the contrary that the proposed names are not correct descriptions of the content and that they are harder to read. Consensus was in favor of renaming as proposed. (Editors also discussed procedural matters, which had no bearing on the substantive outcome.) In future discussion, it would be advisable to focus on clearly and concisely explaining one's preferred names and why they make the most sense, rather than reasserting the conclusion that "the proposed names do not reflect the content" which other participants didn't find convincing or self-evident. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus you see was for wrong names; can consensus decide on flatness of the Earth too? As noted, hard to come up with new names enforced with a weeklong deadline, while having to convince editors who noted no interest in the correctness-issue in the first place. Also, just close as "no consensus, no prejudice against change" would have the same effect. Wiki does not have to be finished tomorrow. How would "easier to understand" work out while wrong? Incidentally, glad with your notion re procedural matters; I can agree with. DePiep (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  (closer) @DePiep, there was no "week-long deadline". The discussion opened on the 28th June, and you first commented on the 2nd of July. Your latest comment was on the 7th July, and I closed the discussion on the 2nd August. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Qwerfjkl: TL;DR: XfD does have a deadline, which cannot be extended at will. Then, how would proposed alternative good names be accepted, given that editors choose to !vote for bad ones? None came forward with a "fair enough" understanding.

  Longer: an XfD may be closed after 7 days. There is no way an editor can preventy closing. Had I embarked on researching & developing good category names using extra time, any moment a closer could have come by an legally cut the process short. So, a deadline it is, and an unpredictable one at that. "2nd August" does not mean anything: that's only time in hindsight, not an intended guarantee. On top of this, not one editor came forward to conclude "fair enough, let's make time to find those better names". Why not?

  And, given that these editors obviously choose to !vote for wrong names, why or how would they agree to any other name? Name quality did not seem to be an argument. This is the wider picture: this enforced editing ("prove that the proposal is wrong or else ..", apart from the open oportunity for everyone to discover this themselves) is not how Wikipedia is being build. More like: it is up to promotors of the change to convince others that the change is an improvement. Or conclude a "fair enough". DePiep (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  These BF accusations towards me and the misguided due process perceptions have gone out of hand. Since no positive developing responses are made, in this case by the closer no less, and since BF PA's are involved, I need elaborations to describe what was lost where. I cannot prevent repetitions. I reject the the aspergions, and I expect due process recognitions.

  @Qwerfjkl: You still have not clarified how the dates you mention change anything to the basic fact that the proposed names are incorrect. As you know, XfD can be closed any moment and irrespective of onging good intentions. Waiting time for closing does not count as such (the opposite: as long as this was randomly open, no WP:OTHER venue to be initiated preferably. Why is this so difficult to acknowledge?). Better: if you as a closer werte interested in such clollaborative development, you consistently could have closed as "no consensus, start a talk" (as was proposed). And why should it be me to propose, deadline-enforced, better analysis and names? Why not other editors?

  In the process Qwerfjkl has muddied their argumentation with BF aspergions of WP:OWN, adding If you really believe my closure was incorrect (italics in original). They added this BF-accusation after they closed the CfD, only ion the go-to-the-closer talk. So how to weigh this 'argument'? Was it used at moment of closing, then why not mention such an important aspect? Or was it added only afterwards, pointing to sloppy reading or !votecounting? Anyway, I reject OWN-accusations even when done this casually this late. The accusation should have been made & based from the start (ie closing), but of course not be made at all. Now it be withdrawn unconditionally.

  Another aspect: you claim that it was me who should have provided better names contradicts your own "OWN"-accusation (however bad based). Because: if you distrust my posts, why ask for more? DePiep (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @DePiep, There was no consensus that the proposed names were incorrect; only you have objected. As it was you who objected to the names, of course the onus is on you to provide better ones. There was no reason to mention WP:OWN at the closure; it was only brought up here because you objected on the basis that you created the categories. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Qwerfjkl: You keep evading the questions like on why you refer to the dates & periodes, so you still maintain that the waiting for closure was "development time". This XfD is not a collaborative talk. (Let me repeat that of course I did not open a Talk-development simultaneously while this thread was still open). Sorry to editors for having to repeat this, but WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT invites me to, and a portion of recurring frivolous BF accusations I obviousl;y still need to defend myself against.

  1. Anyway, no consensus that the proposed names were incorrect is not a logical discussion, it's shallow !votecounting. Putting the burdon on me is presuming and provoking statements of OWNership. Simple: category content is open for research & learning for everyone. Every editor was free to investigate. Correctness is not a !voting or drive-by-opinion issue, it could and should be researched. (I had already noted that the nominator took a graveyard-category of deprecated & unused templates for name pattern example). I have invited everyone to open a Talk on this after closure. Even without you ignoring the bad faith personal attacks, so by straight XfD only, you should have noticed this fallacy. But no editor has acknowledged that they were open to review their !vote were better names presented: instead the attitude is "lean back, fingers in ears, and say 'prove me wrong'; meanwhile I keep my support-!vote up". It is this unwillingness of editors to do some basic research into category content & structure, not even after being challenged. No "fair enough" come-backs. I note, none of these three editors were involved in editing or discussing the topic: not by maintenance, not by recent research, not by noting something broken. That is drive-by-!voting: opinionating without responsibility or WP:COMPETENCE.

  2. By now, all three other contributing editors have made personal attacks towards me re WP:OWN & Bad Faith (nominator FL did so in this thread). All three! First, you as closing editor should have noticed those accusations (by two editors at the time), and taken explicitly into account somehow. A unbased sloppy drive-by BF accusation at least poisons and spoils a discussion into irrecoverability (unless redactions occur), but usually makes a content argumentation worthless because it's not about content but about the editor. With a BF accusation, all argumentation is off. What is left is a BF stench. Same effect when BF accusations are let go unchecked. So: you should have addressed this when closing ("BF accusations rejected/accepted because ..., consequence for the discussion conclusion is ..."). This too is where your closing statement lacks. Even worse: after closing you showed your "don't OWN"-opinion [1].

  1+2= So since you explicitly did not weigh those two aspects (content reasonings nor BF aspersions), you closure was incomplete and amounts to votecounting. Then, after closing you showed using closer's vote. DePiep (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @DePiep, I'm afraid this discussion is going nowhere. To avoid leaving you waiting for a response, I'm leaving this comment, to note that I will no longer be commenting on this discussion. I will leave your comments to be weighed up by the closer of this discussion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @DePiep, By If you really believe my closure was incorrect I meant that you should be certain the closure was wrong before asking for review, given that everyone else in the discussion disagreed. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• (As CFD nominator) For the record, see here for the original Speedy renaming request by DePiep, which drew attention to this group of template categories. At the end of the full CFD, DePiep acknowledged that "What alternative rename would make the intended/actual use clear to other editors?" was "the right core question" and said "it takes more time", so we gave him a month, during which he came up with nothing.

As for his objections at CFD:

1. the new names do not reflect the (actual and intenteded) content – disputed; indeed, that complaint may apply more to the original names
2. they do not use smart naming principles – disputed, see user:Gonnym's contributions at CFDS
3. they forego editors' input actually working in the area – accepted that it was a WP:Bold nomination without prior discussion, but it was notified to e.g. WT:CHEM and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements via Article Alerts
4. they are not well researched - disputed; the nomination made comparisons with sibling categories.

I'm finding it difficult to locate DePiep's good faith in this matter. His responses throughout the discussions seem to be a matter of pique and WP:OWN. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing of what you bring up here can undo the fact that the proposed names are wrong. Suppose, for sake of argument, that I did "WP:OWN" (quod non) the topic, and didn't clean up my room, and had drowned a puppy: still does not matter to the Earth being a sphere. Meanwhile, why didn't you yourself research the categories and the names to reply?

And here is the sneaky points: had I taken up the command to propose better names, (1) nothing in your posts says you'd have accepted any proof or argument, since you have explicitly kept to change into the wrong names anyway. Instead, had you advocated "fair enough, let's research" you'd have shown actual interest in cooperative improvement. (2) Had I taken up that command, you'd have argued "see, he's admitting OWNing, posting as if he were the only one who decides". The fallacy is to put some burden on me—while the base of my claim is in the open for everyone to find & check. The opposite of OWN.

Now this detail needs attention. Re so we gave him a month: who is "we" that "gave"? A secret wikicommanding office? Of course, XfD does not allow editors to self-determine closing time, a closer could come along any moment irrespective of an ongoing research. It's more simple: if you (whoever "you" are) would want to "give" extra time, you could have proposed a Let: no change now, & go to a talkpage. Maintaining "you must prove, or else we'll change to the wrong categorynames" makes no sense.

Wrapping up: The approach "prove or else" is incorrect by due Wikipedia process.And I reject all smears of OWNership, however soft-posted, as being not substantiated and spoiling the discussions. First of all, Fayenatic_london, I request that you withdraw that suggestion and allow for a constructive discussion. DePiep (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

By "we" I meant the rest of the Wikipedia community members who took any interest in the matter. So far nobody else has supported your assertions that there is anything incorrect about the new names.

And of course we are still open to suggestions and arguments from you or anybody else for better names. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Fayenatic london, I note that you do not reply to any of the issues I pointed out. Your bad faith personal attack of OWN is very serious, and I might expect responsibility when challenged. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So Fayenatic london, you are saying: you are acting in bad faith, you should have done more so. And then you walk away from responding. For clarity: the Speedy CFDS renaming is independent of the CfD by any means. The CfD addresses non-speedy Moves full stop. Why don't you admit they are distinct? Why do you keep mixing up proposals & arguments? If you thought anything was wrong, you could have addressed this at CFDS instead of perform the speedy move yourself. Drop it.

Another point: it occurs that none of the editors took the obvious suggestion to look into the categories themselves, and research actual content & setup. Why not? (Instead, it was commanded to me—as if to provoke me into an OWNership claim). Of course, the fact "new names do not cover the content" was and is open for everyone to research. And to discuss in a talk (no editor nor the closer has picked up this wikipedian constuctivist proposal). Even worse, instead of taking a good look, editors kept !voting for a change into bad names, i.e., never acknowledging the possibility they were on the wrong track, aka 'fair enough'. This is an illustration of Drive By Tagging (or drive by !voting): editors who are not engaged in the topic, and not willing to engage, but still dropping !votes–lean backwards–saying "convince me that I am wrong". In this case, FL. I don't see how this is improving the encyclopedia, especially not involved editors cooperation. DePiep (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 July

Qibli Mosque – Overturned to no consensus. No consensus has been achieved in the RM and MR as to whether disambiguation is needed at all, and what the best form would be. However, the move review has concluded that "Qibli Mosque", a good-faith attempt at a Solomonic solution by the closer, is what nobody wanted. So we're back to square one. Procedurally, the page title should be restored to Al-Aqsa Mosque without prejudice, but I will check out first whether it will be better to continue the ongoing page traffic assessment. No such user (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Qibli Mosque (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) It was a long discussion with three alternative names, none of which had consensus. The rationale for the move was that Al-Aqsa mosque is an ambiguous term that could refer to the congregational mosque or to the whole compound, also known as Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif or al-Aqsa Mosque compound. There was no consensus on that. For many editors the congregational mosque is the primary topic since the compound is mainly known by those other unambiguous names. The article was finally moved to Qibli Mosque. The argument was that WP:NATURAL allows to chose a less common name that is not ambiguous. But again there was no consensus for that, since some editors felt that name is too obscure and doesn't meet WP:NATURAL. Vpab15 (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Can we organize this move review so that involved parties vote in one section, and uninvolved parties in another section? The IVc review is a mess to read with involved parties mixing their votes with uninvolved parties. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC) It should also be noted that the editors opposed to all moves away from the existing title for the purpose of disambiguation provided little evidence that the congregational mosque was the primary topic, while those in favour of disambiguation provided plenty of evidence that significant ambiguity existed. The choice for the closer was therefore between one of several disambiguation options backed up by evidence of the need for disambiguation or a status quo inadequately supported by evidence of the subject being a clear primary topic. A tough call, but ultimately a necessary one. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Note re ongoing traffic assessment: Since the original title Al-Aqsa Mosque currently redirects to Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation), we have an opportunity to assess whether there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC using traffic statistics. Please see Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation)#Temporary addition of new piped redirects in order to assess outbound traffic from this disambiguation page. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pageview_statistics: "These figures do not reflect the number of unique visitors a page has received...Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources." Drsmoo (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC) And we're not discussing notability here. Notability is about whether a specific subject should have an entry, which is not in doubt for the object of any of the redirects. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Summary table of votes below: Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) Al-Qibli Mosque Qibli Mosque Overall position on title disambiguation Explicit Support votes Onceinawhile (as nom) Khestwol (as nom) Andrewa (as nom) Andrewa Iskandar323 Andrewa Khestwol Khestwol Selfstudier Onceinawhile Onceinawhile Dan Palraz Iskandar323 Iskandar323 Nableezy Nableezy Nableezy Al Ameer Nishidani Nishidani Vice Regent Selfstudier Selfstudier Vice Regent Vice Regent Dan Palraz Al Ameer TOTAL 7 2 8 10 Explicit Oppose votes Tombah Necrothesp Drsmoo Tombah Necrothesp Tombah Necrothesp Necrothesp Khestwol gidonb Vpab15 Number57 Number57 Srnec (implicit) Number57 Vpab15 Vpab15 Drsmoo Drsmoo StellarNerd StellarNerd Srnec Andrewa gidonb Srnec TOTAL 9 4 4 8 The are two qualitative overlays to this: 1) Over almost seven weeks of discussion, no editors changed their view from support to oppose, but two editors changed their views from oppose to support 2) A number of the oppose votes continually referred to policies which were out of scope for the discussion, or were unable to back-up their claims with sources Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: My opposition to the original was explicit (a bolded oppose). My opposition to the al-Qibli proposal was also explicit (although not a bolded oppose). My opposition to the final proposal was merely implicit in my earlier comment on the second. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: Link to Srnec's bolded oppose vote to the original proposal Link to Srnec's explicit opposition to the Al-Qibli Mosque proposal . Why have you not corrected the table? It's inaccurate. Drsmoo (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you, very helpful. I have updated the table. I have also added another column showing the overall position on title disambiguation - adding up all the voters across the three proposals, and recognizing that two of the voters moved from oppose to support. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse (Involved, supported move) The RM extended over a long period with several relists and plenty of participation afaik all the relevant information was discussed at length in the RM. That there was and is a significant amount of ambiguity in respect of the original title (al-Aqsa mosque) was clearly demonstrated. So that we all can simply know what exactly this ambiguity is, there is a pic of the sanctuary here, the subject of discussion is the key code number 118 with description Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Qibly Mosque and in the text underneath it says Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif is a sacred area in Jerusalem of immense religious importance to all Muslims and includes all of its 144 dunums (144,000 m2) (“the Sacred Compound”). The area includes the Qibli Mosque of Al-Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, all of the buildings, walls, courtyards, and environs above and beneath the ground." In other words, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is the name given to the whole area as well as to the building with the silver dome (which is also known as Al-Qibli Mosque). That's the ambiguity. The choice faced by the closer was whether it ought to be resolved and decided that the ambiguity justified a change of title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus and encourage opening a new RM for the Qibli option. Given that my clear opposition did not register with the proposer (see above), I wonder whether it registered with the closer. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse (Involved, opposed the original proposal but supported the 2 counterproposals) - happy that the RM was finally closed, and that the ambiguity in the title is removed. Khestwol (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse (Involved, supported move) - per the above, the important note that the 'Qibli Mosque' option proposals won over former opposers, and the close being a clearly positive step towards disambiguation - with the closer's decision being supported by straightforward and policy-abiding logic. Overturning this would be a move to re-ambiguate, and not serve the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn (Involved) There were two fundamental questions posed by the RM: is disambiguation required, and if so, what should the new name be? There was no consensus that supported disambiguation, and I think in most cases the RM would have ended there. However, the closer continued to extend the RM. In his initial extension, the closer wrote “the opponents keep citing "COMMONNAME" (which I don't find relevant as the supporters are not trying to move to anything other than "Al-Aqsa Mosque" + disambiguator)”. However, as can be seen by the move result, the move was in fact made to a completely different name, which contradicts the stated justification for extending. Equally puzzling, the RM was closed within 30 minutes of the proposer requesting a closure on the closer’s talk page. This did not even allow 24 hours for pinged users to reply to the latest proposal, which required significant scrolling to even be viable on mobile. At no point was there consensus for what is now the move result. On ARBPIA subjects, it is of particular importance to A. Respect community consensus B. Avoid citogenesis(the current name does not fit the criteria of “fairly common” as it’s below the usage threshold on Google Trends and Ngrams) This is particularly true given the long-term title stability of the article. The RM should be reverted back to the title it was stable at, then there should be an RFC to determine if disambiguation is required. If so, an RM can be made to move to a new title. What definitely should not happen is the process that did: having no consensus to disambiguate, extending by saying the commonname argument is irrelevant as there is no change to the name, and then changing away from the commonname to a new name before involved users have a chance to reply. Drsmoo (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn (Involved). I don't believe a disambiguation issue ever existed here; the terms Al-Aqsa Mosque and Temple Mount have been used to refer to the silver-domed structure and the entire compound on Wikipedia for as long as 20 years now; these are also the common terms in academic literature. According to most English-language sources, there is no other Al-Aqsa Mosque besides the silver-domed structure itself; the entire compound is usually referred to as the Temple Mount or the Haram al-Sharif ("Noble Sanctuary"). When the entire compound is referred to as "Al-Aqsa", it is always "Al-Aqsa Compound" or "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound", with the name "Al-Aqsa Mosque" preserved for the mosque itself. The term "Qibli Mosque" is pretty recent (maybe a byproduct of recent developments?) and extremely rare in English sources. Sadly, I wasn't able to oppose it during the discussion itself - the RM was closed too quickly. My opinion is similar to Drsmoo's - the whole process was far from good practice. The best way to go is to issue a RFC to determine if disambiguation is actually needed. Tombah (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn. In my opinion, the name "Al Aqsa" is used by almost everyone, for the mosque itself. Almost no one know about the Qibli name. Atbannett (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Note: This user has just over 500 edits. The user's involvement in this discussion came within four hours of the seven-week RM being closed,[2] in an apparent coincidence alongside a second user also with just over 500 edits.[3] Onceinawhile (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) @Atbannett: This move wasn't about the term "al-Aqsa" in general, which was already a disambiguation page about the quite various uses of that name. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) "Almost no one know about the Qibli name" is an incorrect claim. Because if so, then why is the article's title (al-Muṣallā al-Qiblī) on Arabic Wikipedia? Certainly, Muslims know about this name all over the world. Plus, UNESCO and the US government have used this name. Khestwol (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) The Arabic Wikipedia will use the Arabic name. That is not relevant for the question of what the name in English Wikipedia should be. Vpab15 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC) He also mentioned UNESCO and the US government; pretty sure Arabic is not an official language in the US. Have your fill of English sources Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I think we should stop the relitigation and let uninvolved editors participate. Obviously that applies to me as well. I am as guilty as any other and I shouldn't have responded. Vpab15 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Endorse, involved. It was a difficult call made more difficult by several editors indulging in borderline IDHT and TE without quite crossing the boundary into clear disruption. There is no better alternative, nor any better supported alternative, to Qibli Mosque, the eventual result of the RM. And yes, I did propose that title myself. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Further to my !vote: One thing that made this a good close is the closing comment noting a long debate demonstrating ambiguity in the article title (my emphasis). That cut through the many irrelevant arguments that we are still seeing, one most obvious one being that the Temple Mount is the third holiest site in Islam. Um, this is not about that article, nor is holiness mentioned in WP:AT... So that is very clearly a POV argument. That ambiguity, which was the reason for the RM, having been decided by consensus (which we seem to now need an RfC to show, but is it really in question) there was no policy-based alternative to a move, and the only question was, where to? The result chosen by closer (which I again disclose was my own suggestion) was the best available, and again we had rough consensus on that. So it was not just a good close, it was a very good close. We should proceed with the RfC, but not because the result is in doubt. Rather, because we need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn. It is true that the process here had some serious problems. I personally didn't get a chance to reply since this was closed too quickly after the last name was suggested... Anyway, as a matter of fact, as other editors mentioned above, there was no consensus at all for disambiguation in the first place, and the selected term is much rare. Can anybody tell who was the first to use it and when? To sum up, reversing this move would be a good start. Let's start over by discussing the root question - is there really a disambiguation issue here? And this question refers to the English language, of course.Eladkarmel (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn. I am uninvolved, and did not participate. This is a misleading and almost unknown name. Worse, in terms of process, the new proposal wasn't properly advertised and was proposed at the last minute. Onceinawhile opened this page move for Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque), and there was overwhelming opposition to it. This move was open for seven weeks, there was no reason for anyone to come to it seeing that it was a sprawling discussion going nowhere. There was also repeated badgering by Onceandwhile on user talk pages and Wikipedia projects throughout the discussion. There is also badgering on this discussion. Five days before the close a new section, buried at the bottom, was opened on Qibli mosque. Once there was an assembly of votes, by chance, Onceinwawhile liked, Onceandwhile went over to User talk:Mellohi! and canvassed them to close it. The improper closing, by canvassing, and improper advertising makes this a flawed process, tainted at its very heart. The page should be moved back. If the Qibli name merits discussion, it should be done in a fresh requested move that is properly advertised with the desired targed spelled out clearly so that it shows up nicely at current discussions at requested moves with the proposed title.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Note that this editor has concurrently with this edit cast WP:ASPERSIONS in relation to editor Onceinawhile here. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Note that editor Onceinawhile posted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombah against participants in this discussion, prior to my comment, that was closed as baseless. That's the only ASPERSIONS here.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The admin stated "As for the late comments on the RM discussion, that sounds like off-wiki canvassing, which is not wonderful". The statistical improbability for the timing and manner of their votes is strong evidence for the conclusion of canvassing. Do you disagree? @חוקרת: I see from your edit history that you are a new editor, with almost half of your edits being semi automated.[4] And you had never edited at WP:SPI previously. Please could you let us know how you became aware of the SPI investigation? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Over 80% of of the responses occurred within the 24 hours after I sent out a mass ping. Including another user who wasn't pinged. Users with over 500 edits are perfectly permitted to comment on either the Move request or the post-move comments. This little inquisition is blatant tendentious disruptive editing. If you want to Harass editors, at least have the courtesy to only do so on their talk pages. Drsmoo (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 100% of the users who edited between your final ping and the RM's closure had previously commented on the RM. The ping did miss at least one editor who had previously commented, and therefore was likely to be watching the discussion. I consider it extremely surprising that previously uninvolved editors with such limited experience at enwiki would appear so soon after the RM closure. It is also worth remembering that we have a good reason to have our antennas up here, as the RM already attracted an editor who has subsequently been confirmed and blocked on 20 June as a sock of Icewhiz;[5] historical behavior by Icewhiz would suggest his involvement in this discussion did not finish with that sock being blocked. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The move closure occurring right after the ping, and too soon, is one of the central points in overturning the move. It makes no difference if the comment is before/after the closure. It is permitted either way. It is worth remembering that you were recently (a few months ago) ARBPIA-blocked for 1 week for tendentious, conspiratorial attacks on other editors. I think we should focus on content, not contributors. If you wish to hound other users based on no evidence, this is certainly not the place to do it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I have asked a pertinent question to חוקרת in the knowledge that (a) an admin suggested there has been off-wiki canvassing, and (b) we had a confirmed sock in the RM discussion. We should all be aligned on the need to ensure this discussion has not been compromised. Do you have an alternative proposal to ensure the integrity of this discussion? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) You have missed the fact that the section on "Al-Qibli Mosque" had been open for ten days, where both the forms "al-Qibli" and "Qibli" were discussed. Khestwol (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The initial section was strongly opposed, by a 2-1 ratio. The full move request was closed instantly(within 30 minutes, including close message) after Onceinawhile directly messaged the closer asking it to be closed, which did not give time for all pinged users to see it. Total responses before the premature close were 8-7, which also indicates no consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Not a vote. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn For two reasons the discussion was closed too early only five days have been passed. The consensus was assessed wrongly the closer didn't explain why oppose comments should be disregarded as I read his close comment it seems to me as a WP:SUPERVOTE --Shrike (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Move review is not Move request part II. Or part VII in this case. And pretending to be uninvolved in this move request when you are decidedly involved in the topic is kind of silly, but whatever. Yall should restrict this discussion to was the move closure proper or improper. And it would be so much better if it were outside voices, not those opposed to the move saying overturn and those in favor saying endorse. nableezy - 21:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn <uninvolved> – reclose soon after under WP:OTHEROPTIONS and choose a probably more appropriate title. In finding a consensus to move away from the old title to a different title, perhaps with dabbing, I had to discount several oppose !votes as not applicable. So supporters with their complex and varying rationales led to this assessment. I seldom challenge like this; however, in this case after reading the RM, it appears that the current name of the article only came close (but no cigar) to consensus. I would have to really study this to be able to choose a title under OTHEROPTIONS, but I don't agree that the current name, "Qibli Mosque", satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. So I doubt that I would choose the current title for this article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC) PS. Add that I find it unworthy of the RM's nom (who should know better) that they actually solicited the closer on his talk page, and trout the closer of the RM for going ahead with that closure and not admonishing the nom for the improper solicitation. Technically, that solicitation disqualified the closer from ending this particular RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I think thats reading a bit too much into it, the closer is who had re-listed it twice. nableezy - 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Not reading anything into it, just sayin' that WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest, the closer's instruction guide, specifically prohibits editors from soliciting individuals to close move requests. The closer must be aware of this, and the RM's nom has been around long enough to know better, as well. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I didn’t know that, thanks. Reading it now, that rule appears to be written solely to ensure impartiality. That was assured here as the closer was the relister, and had not been solicited. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC) It's understandable, and forgivable certainly, if an editor hasn't much closing experience and hasn't read the closing instructions. But even a "hint" of CoI should be avoided. The closer should have made you aware and immediately recuse himself from any further action. Your asking him to close the RM disqualified him, and he should have pointed you to WP:CR and taken no more action in that RM. It's worth at least a trout, tho' some editors consider it worth a {{WHALE}} (for when a trout just isn't enough ). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, and create an RFC to determine consensus on a name. I just dont see the consensus here. I voted to move for the record. nableezy - 01:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Exactly what OTHEROPTIONS is about. An RM is a specific type of RfC that is used solely to determine consensus on a name. If the closer picks an unpopular title, then instead of opening up a move review, a new RM can be opened at any time to garner consensus for hopefully the highest and best title of the article. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Nableezy, if you have a good idea about how to structure a revised RFC / RM, please go ahead. My experience in situations like this is that views on the best title get spread out and consensus can only find the highest percentage / plurality / most preferred, but can never get over 50%. Wikipedia situations like this need a Two-round system to fully resolve, but there is no guidance for one (maybe I can try to draft a guidance proposal for the benefit of the wider community), and I can’t remember seeing one be successful. The best thing about the outcome so far is that by moving the base name it provided an opportunity to do the traffic assessment, which has provided a very clear answer on whether there was a primary topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Should the result of this review be overturn/nocon, then let the article keep its prior title and be the silver domed mosque (since the content now matches that) and then make a new page for the Haram. This would also resolve the ambiguity. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Surely that would then be a fork of Temple Mount? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." Particularly in the I/P space, there are multiple articles that approach the same physical space from different perspectives. But it is also the case all over Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Plus it is now statistically certain that most editors typing in the words “Al Aqsa Mosque” are looking for the Temple Mount / Haram. Directing them to the wrong subject would be inappropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Drsmoo had no problem with this idea, Talk:Temple Mount#The conflict in names, There is no wiikipolicy reason why an article for Haram al-Sharif can't be created though. Drsmoo (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC) I'm all ears for any other method of dealing with the ambiguity, though. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Lol, Drsmoo beat me to it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth yeah I get the distinction between RMs and RFCs, but RFCs run for longer by default and generally attract wider participation. Beyond that, it would be hugely helpful if there were limits on how many times one person could respond in the RFC, as the larger the wall of text becomes the less likely it is to get that wider particpation. nableezy - 13:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Apologies, Nableezy, that was meant for other editors who often don't get the important distinction between RMs and RfCs. RMs usually get less participation because it is intrinsic to their design to attract editors who are involved with a specific article or page rather than editors who are interested in the broader subject material. An RfC on this title would probably be even much longer and more convoluted than this RM was, but, though a nonstandard procedure, if editors think it's a good idea, then by all means it should be tried. OTHEROPTIONS has worked in the past, so I'm still for using that procedure first. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Part of the problem here is that it takes a decent amount of background information to understand the issue, and that just isnt something that WP's !vote setup is really well suited to deal with. At the very least an RFC on is al-Aqsa Mosque ambiguous would be useful as that doesnt even have agreement (for reasons I cant readily understand tbh but that isnt relevant here). nableezy - 15:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC) +1 to that, sooner that is cleared up the better. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Surely we are done on that question now? The traffic assessment is 100% clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC) There are editors arguing, even here, that there is no (or there is no real) ambiguity. I don't believe a disambiguation issue ever existed here. Difficult to make progress in the face of that, needs to be cleared up, RFC will do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Surely that was before it became clear that the number of readers coming to Al Aqsa Mosque who are actually looking for the Temple Mount article is almost double the number of readers who are looking for the article about the southern mosque. Before the page was moved there was no way we could have seen that. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: Hey, with which tool and by which means does one pull up this sort of traffic assessment? I've been trying with the drop down traffic report, but I can't figure out how to display exit pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Article traffic assessment for redirect pages from the Wikipedia page "Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation)" Hi Iskandar, three new pipes have been created at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) page (where the base page Al-Aqsa Mosque is currently redirecting to), using entirely new redirect pages: [[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount)|Temple Mount]] [[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Isra)|''Masjid al-Aqṣā'']] [[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Qibli Mosque)|Qibli Mosque]] It is important that they are new, clean, redirect pages, as it allows us to be confident that these redirect pages are not getting views via any other route. This can be verified at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Al-Isra) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Qibli_Mosque) The results from the last week (ever since the base page was redirected to disambiguation) can be seen via the below link (screenshot on the right): https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount)%7CAl-Aqsa_Mosque_(Al-Isra)%7CAl-Aqsa_Mosque_(Qibli_Mosque) Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Out of those that reach that disambiguation page, which are a few, and are then faced with the choice of "Qibli Mosque, a mosque or prayer hall" which is a name they don't recognize and sounds less important. Why are you making new arguments on the review page? This move review is to determine if the non-admin who closed this controversial move assessed the consensus of the discussion correctly, not to discuss your new arguments.PrisonerB (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Agreed. In a comparison between "the religious site in Jerusalem" vs "a mosque or prayer hall". Most will inherently click "the religious site in Jerusalem", as opposed to "Qibli Mosque - a mosque or prayer hall", which sounds entirely non-important. Not to mention the potential for gaming. Naming should be based on reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Please change it as you see fit. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC) “…which are a few” is incorrect. The disambiguation page is currently getting 300 views a day, equal to major pages like History of Jerusalem. That is because the base page is now redirecting there. If you think the page wording could be amended to improve the assessment, please do. Drsmoo already did so a few days ago by putting Qibli Mosque at the top, but it didn’t change the result. It does need to be discussed now, because if the RM close is going to be overturned, the MR closer will need to decide whether to move the base page back or not. If it is moved back, this assessment will not be able to continue because the disambiguation page will not get enough views (to your point). We must use this moment to ensure everyone has had a chance to have their say on the traffic assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I'm a little confused, are there any other options for the name other than Qibli (current) or Al-Aqsa (prior)? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC) No, don't think so - this is just a traffic assessment of where people landing on Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Aqsa Mosque (disambiguation) are ultimately ending end - thus outlining actual reader usage patterns in a way that was not possible when the page was occupied. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I didn't mean that, people are talking about other options and stuff as if this was a multiple choice affair, it isn't, there are two choices and the closer chose one so if it is overturned we are right back to the beginning with the old name + ambiguity, right? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, and that was exactly the point I made in my endorsement note. The discussion did make plain the ambiguity, so a choice of either natural disambiguation or common name (+ parenthetical disambiguator) was ultimately a necessity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC) FYI: Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options. Overturn can mean options 3 or 4 on this table. Option 3 would keep the pages as they are right now, but open a new RM. Option 4 would open a new RM but with everything reversed. I don't think it matters either way, as the discussion will get us to the right place in the end. My only point, per my comment to PrisonerB, is that it would be a shame to end the traffic assessment before everyone interested has had a chance to confirm they are happy that it represents a truly fair assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC) The review won't close imminently, usually takes a while, think you will be able to get a significant stats collection. I think the immediate takeaway of people looking for TM/Haram is the right one, though, on general principles. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Ah ok, now I see what you did - inventive methodology. Good stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Ha, I borrowed this from something I was taught by another editor on a different page a couple of years ago. Good to be able to put it to use. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Support having that proposed RfC on whether Al-Aqsa Mosque is ambiguous. Personally I think that both the facts and the consensus are clear, but there is as yet no consensus on whether we have that consensus (and here at MR we are seeking consensus, among other things, on whether this consensus existed... painful, but that's the proper process). Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (involved). This was the clear outcome. There was obviously no consensus to move to this title that is not commonly used in English-language sources and I'm mystified as to how anyone could see such a consensus in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (NOT involved). The closer was not an administrator and this is a contentious long discussion that is difficult to assess, therefore it is WP:BADNAC/2. The closer was also called to close the discussion by the move nominator, which shows bias. It is also a supervote, the closer did not assess consensus of the discussion but instead went forward with their idiosyncratic viewpoint. Examining this two month long discussion does not show any consensus.PrisonerB (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Discussion moved to Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats Time running out to comment on the traffic assessment: Both Temple Mount and this article at the title “Al Aqsa Mosque” have historically had c.1200-1300 views per day (with "Al Aqsa Mosque" being slightly more popular). Post disambiguation c.10 days ago, the Temple Mount article has the same number of daily views but this article is now getting only 200 daily views. This suggests that c.1,000 readers every single day were previously being incorrectly directed to an article they did not want. We have also seen from the analysis further above that with the Al Aqsa Mosque base name now redirecting to the Al Aqsa Mosque disambiguation page, the disambiguation page is sending more readers to Temple Mount than to this article, albeit not quite on the scale of 1,200 vs 200 per the prior paragraph. As the original nominator, this is roughly the outcome I had expected, because I have always believed that most readers searching for the title “Al Aqsa Mosque” are looking to learn about “the third holiest site in Islam”, not a building within it. But those previously opposed to disambiguation may find the statistical outcome surprising, and may wish to question the validity of this data. Hence I am pinging all voters to ask now, in case an overturn outcome at this MR also leads the mover to choose to un-disambiguate the base name, are there any niggling uncertainties about these statistics that we could resolve right now to gather even firmer data? For example, perhaps further edits to the wording at the disambiguation page? (Pinging Drsmoo, Srnec, Andrewa, Selfstudier, Drsmoo, Iskandar323, Tombah, Necrothesp, Nableezy, Number 57, Vpab15, Dan Palraz, Mellohi!, StellarNerd, Vice regent, Al Ameer son, gidonb, Khestwol, Nishidani, PrisonerB, Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Paine Ellsworth, חוקרת) Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC) This isnt the page to do this, this discussion is not about what name is the correct name. It is only about whether or not there was consensus for the move. All the above is interesting, but entirely irrelevant to this discussion. nableezy - 16:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps not, but as once has noted, the traffic assessment is only possible for as long as the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" directs to the disambiguation page, and it does provide some fairly compelling supplementary evidence of the ambiguity that exists, the very much mixed reader expectations in typing in the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque", and the original premise for the move: disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC) I would suggest moving the traffic data and the explanation of it into its own section at the article so that it is readily available post move review. Should we proceed to RFC, it will be useful there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Good idea. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Exactly. If there was ever any doubt that the term is seriously ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the ping. Yes, and it's not just niggling unceratinties. These statistics are interesting but irrelevant to this particular discussion. So in that sense they have no validity here whatsoever. That's one reason they should be moved out of this discussion. Again, give the closer a break. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Discussion moved to Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (involved) Shocked to see this somehow ended up being moved when there was clearly no consensus to do so. I also think the bludgeoning of this discussion by Onceinawhile needs to be prevented going forwards. Number 57 16:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (involved, briefly, and in the summary above) There was no consensus to change the name of Al Aqsa to Qibli. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (half-invovled, voted in the beginning of the discussion, but didn't participate in the Qibli proposal). There is no way that discussion can be read as consensus for anything, it just a bludgeoned mess. I would have voted against Qibli if I were around to comment on it. The nominator's repeated postings to closer's Mellohi!'s talk page pleading for a close do not look good. Mellohi! was also (7/5) pinged (7/14) as a !voter in the discussion by two separate editors, so is involved in the discussion. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved). There was no consensus for the Qibli Mosque closure. In particular, while a closer could fairly discount the relevance of WP:COMMONNAME arguments in relation to the original proposal for parenthetical disambiguation, the common-name arguments cannot be discounted in relation to the Qibli Mosque proposal. The argument that Qibli Mosque is not common enough to qualify as natural disambiguation was within policy and was adequately supported by evidence. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved). It's clear there was no concenesus to move. I'd also like to reiterate this was a WP:BADNAC under clause 2. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Overturn and start a fresh discussion. (I edit in the area but did not vote in the RM.) I'm !voting against several people I usually agree with, though I don't agree with all the arguments of their opponents either. First some facts: (A) The use of "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to either or both the compound and the building at its southern end is commonplace and has centuries of history. (B) In English usage today and at least since the 19th century, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" overwhelmingly refers to the building and much less commonly to the compound. (C) "Al-Qibli Mosque" is a name used by some official bodies and writers on Islam, but as a name in both common English and scholarly English it is a tiny minority. Relevant opinions: (1) Any claim that WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant to the discussion is preposterous. Similarly with WP:NATURAL (note the explicit policy against using obscure names). (2) If two topics with the same name need separate articles, we qualify some or all of the article titles, such as Rome, Rome, Georgia, Rome, Indiana, etc etc. If necessary, we make a dab page as well. What we don't do is change one of them to a title that few people have heard of. That's not disambiguation, it's obscuration. (3) If we follow normal practice, the article about the building would be called "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and the article about the compound would be qualified (for example "Al-Aqsa Mosque (compound)"). As a compromise, it would be acceptable for both of them to be "Al-Aqsa Mosque (qualified)". For these reasons, I believe that the page move created an unsatisfactory state of affairs that should be rectified. Zerotalk 14:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC) @Zero0000: I am ok with all these points, except for (B) which is incorrect. I say this with certainty having read hundreds of sources over the last couple of months through this discussion. In the 21st century, usage of Al Aqsa Mosque for the compound is extremely common. It is the primary name for the Temple Mount used by Muslim writers in English today – whether scholars, journalists or users of social media. Yitzhak Reiter explains this (see quote in cite 61), but you can see for yourself in google scholar or Al Jazeera / other major English-language news outlets from the region etc. Western media has started to follow this, often disambiguating by adding the word compound or deleting the word mosque, but other times leaving it completely ambiguous when reporting on “clashes at Al Aqsa Mosque” or similar (note when reviewing sources:– between 1967 and 2014, Israel never once entered the Aqsa (Qibli) building itself.[6]) As Reiter correctly says, the “Haram al-Sharif” name has fallen out of local usage, and “Aqsa” or “Aqsa mosque” has become a globally recognized brand in the conflict in reference to the Temple Mount. This is borne out by the disambiguation traffic analysis so far, and more data with the latest changes to the disambiguation page text should clarify this further. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC) @Onceinawhile: I won't answer expansively since this is not the right place. (a) I stand by (B). (b) "Local usage" and "Muslim writers" are relevant to COMMMONNAME but not its main criterion, and "started to follow this" works against you. (d) I have several articles of Reiter where he uses "Al-Aqsa Mosque" to refer to the building. Zerotalk 03:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I think the consensus to overturn is fairly clear here, idk if the mover can simply overturn it himself, but if mello agrees that there is a consensus (and I think that obvious at this point) could they do so if allowed, and if not can we get this closed out? nableezy - 00:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I am planning to overturn given that I wanted the move review to be opened in the first place to get outside input; the non-participants so far generally support an overturn to no consensus. Unfortunately, as I am going on a long car trip, I will not be available for many hours from now. If anyone feels like closing as overturn and reverting the move, they may do so without asking me. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I agree, BUT the traffic assessment is still going. We just had a new comment from Apaugasma (who kindly then amended the disambiguation page) so we need the base page to continue to redirect to the disambiguation page to see how the stats play out again. The disambiguation page was getting zero views before the move, so if the base page stops redirecting there, the assessment will be over. We really need to ensure everyone has had a chance to review the traffic assessment statistics, and if they disagree with the way the disambiguation page is pointing readers, to edit it and to watch the stats in their version. I have seen that some editors continue to find it hard to believe that the main topic sought when a reader searches for the term Al Aqsa Mosque is consistently showing to be Temple Mount, and these editors need the chance to achieve absolute certainty. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Pageview statistics, unique page views are not tracked. So it would be easy to manipulate the results by just visiting a link over and over again (or coding a simple python bot). This is far from a scientific system, and Wikipedia would be better going with reliable sources, especially given the the sensitivity of this subject. Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC) We have certainty that there is no substantial manipulation, because the stats being shown are lower than expected, not higher than expected. There is no way of reducing the page views. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC) ..."We have certainty"? Someone could just add a decent chunk of hits to whichever one they wanted based on the observed trend for num hits. Drsmoo (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Yes we do have certainty. Remember, the disambiguation page is currently top of the google results for "aqsa mosque", "aqsa" and similar. So we can be certain that it is getting a healthy number of real views. Yet so few of those have been choosing to go to the article about the southern building, in each of the various forms the dab page has been shown in so far. And no bad actor is able to artificially lower the number of views. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) As I explained here, I don't think that the traffic stats show what Once believes they show. Not because of manipulation, but because of the experimental design. Zerotalk 02:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks Zero. This is exactly why the traffic assessment must be allowed to continue, so we can test each editor's view of the right experimental design. Apaugasma just left another detailed comment[7] so we need to make more tweaks to test that. And I will respond to your points as well, so we can create two or more additional versions to text. I as wrote elsewhere, after having things this way for 20 years, a lot of editors are understandably finding it difficult to believe that statistical conclusions suggesting that most readers are actually looking to learn about the wider compound, so it needs pressure testing from all angles. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Please see Talk:Qibli Mosque#Current status and phases of the disambiguation traffic assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Comment I personally don't see how the on-going traffic assessment is relevant to this Move Review. It should continue on the article's talk page rather than here, and a new WP:RM opened if need be after this WP:MR is concluded. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Hi @Kj cheetham: please see my comment at 00:33, 1 August 2022. If the Move Review closer decides to move Qibli Mosque on top of the Al Aqsa Mosque base page (it is currently redirecting to DAB), the traffic assessment will be forced to end. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Ah, I understand now. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2022 June

2023 Nigerian general election (closed)

2023 Nigerian general election – Overturned and relisted. My bad. Should have relisted at least once when it had so little participation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2023 Nigerian general election (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) I requested this move as the current title indicates that there is one central election on one day (like 2018 Pakistani and 2019 British election pages); however, there are dozens of different elections in Nigeria throughout 2023 (from February to at least November) making this page more comparable to the 2020 United States elections (especially as they are both presidential systems with a large number of disparate elections throughout the year). Also, as the component elections in this page already have unique pages, it is no longer like the 2019 page where there was no separate election page. In accordance with other like pages, such as the 2022 Nigerian elections, 2023 Nigerian elections is more accurate. When I brought this up first, it was clear that the user that moved this page is not at all familiar with the content of the page; when I requested it be moved others seemingly understood why but stopped short of supporting while the opponent refused to engage until the discussion was closed. On the second move request, an opponent pivoted to a content discussion before also refusing to engage until the discussion was closed. The mover didn't engage on their talk page either, so I am bringing it here as no one has spoken in good faith in months and this needs to be talked out. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Indus Valley civilisation

Indus Valley civilisation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The s-variant, -isation, of South Asian English (inherited from non-Oxford British English) has been in use in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) page from its inception in 2001. There may have been times when someone moved it to the z-variant (with -ization), but it was soon reverted back

It is my contention that:

an article that has relied on

• MOS:TIES to South Asian Englishes for orthography (which includes the spelling "-isation," in contrast to "-ization") and on
• MOS:RETAIN for retaining the spelling for 21 years in the face of monthly attempts to change it to -ization.

must also sample in the corpus of the language of MOS:TIES for capitalization.

In other words, we cannot change midstream in the big river of Standard Englishes from the South Asian Standard English to some other(s) for the purposes of determining capitalization.

IVC was discovered in 1923, nearly 100 years ago. It is reasonable, therefore, to use a moving average window of 10 years to examine changes stably. Google ngrams with a smoothing of 10 shows that from 1994, "Civilisation" has clearly prevailed and"'civilisation" plummeted in use.

I would not employ this argument to change a page name that had existed for 21 years in the lower-case "civilisation" to the capitalized "Civilisation." But I think this statistic is sufficient for retaining a page name in its uppercase "Civilisation" of 21 years.

A longer version of my reasons is posted in this talk page section. There was a second discussion with the closer and some others on this talk page section Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"plummeted" is not a good word for the relatively modest change of ratio of capitalized to uncapitalized in the sources. And all this was discussed at the RM; it is not a sensible reason to challenge the close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 (Indus Valley civilisation)

• Closer's note I told Fowler to file this review without fully engaging with me in my talk over the close because I felt like consulting uninvolved parties over how I closed the RM would be more helpful in resolving these issues. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have asked the closer specifically below if they were aware at the time of closing that Google ngrams do not sample among the books cited in MOS:CAPS, i.e. "independent, reliable sources," but among everything in the Google database, which includes all sorts of books, including self-published ones. I showed below that in the search for

  "IVC/c" with no effort at all 800 self-published books can be rounded up from among half a dozen Vanity Publishers, contrasting with 1300 published by the presses of the dozens and dozens of the world's universities.

  I asked because the initiator of the page move had made just this statement:

  Statistics from books show tons of lowercase (even valley sometimes): [8] and [9]. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  with both links citing ngrams. I pinged the closer more than 24 hours ago below, but there was no response, and I am pinging the again, @Mellohi!:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Another red herring. If you look at the first page of 10 book hits from university presses, you see 5 of 10 lowercase (or at least that's what I see); in the self-published, it's only 3 of 10 lowercase. So if the self-publishers skewed the stats, it's more likely in the opposite direction of what you're suggesting. Self-publishers are the ones more likely to have copied Wikipedia's over-capitalization, as I'm sure you'll agree. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  These arguments based on "writers may have copied from Wikipedia" are just speculations and imaginations and quite fallacious, and you have yourself admitted that you cannot prove any of it. Please do not keep repeating these un-provable claims. Chaipau (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Don't put quotation marks around biasing misquotes please. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't quoting you directly only calling out a type of argument used often. I could have said writers-may-have-copied-from-Wikipedia or called it differently. But I can see now that it looks like a quote. Thanks for pointing it out. Chaipau (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Arguments that Wikipedia has influenced writers are not the same as accusations of copying, but yes, there can also be a bit of that. Generally, the "recent trends" in capitalization are positive, partly likely due to Wikipedia influence on topics where Wikipedia caps the title, and partly because self-published books (and wiki-mirror books) have become more common in recent years. So the worst arguments in this whole mess are those that focus on very recent stats (e.g. the blip up in caps in 2017–2019) and call that a trend. The n-gram stats are much more meaningful if you discount the years in which book sales came to be dominated by online sales (i.e. the last 15 years or so); before that, Google had rather few self-published or wiki-based books to scan. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I ask the closer again: Were they aware that Google ngrams which they purportedly believed do not sample either independence or reliability, the linchpins, or should I say kingpins, of MOS:CAPS? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again: "but ngrams may also sample unreliable sources" line of argumentation is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. We have always used ngrams as a statistical tool that demonstrates general academic usage and there is no reason to believe that reliability of a source would correlates with spelling of "C/civilis/zation". No such user (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can you demonstrate that Google ngrams demonstrate "general academic usage"? Google ngrams has a dropdown menu to look for usage in [fictional works Clearly, not all ngrams in that dataset are from serious academic work. That is not the purpose of the dataset either. How many are from self-published books can only be speculated because Google does not provide that information. So use Google Ngrams judiciously. Not like the holy grail. Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, "academic" was a bit strong, but let's say "formal". As for the "self-published" books theory, it's both false and irrelevant

  Over 100 sources of metadata information were used by Google to generate a comprehensive catalog of books. Some of these sources are library catalogs (e.g., the list of books in the collections of University of Michigan, or union catalogs such as the collective list of books in Bosnian libraries), some are from retailers (e.g., Decitre, a French bookseller), and some are from commercial aggregators (e.g., Ingram). In addition, Google also receives metadata from its 30,000 partner publishers.
  That does not leave much room for self-published. Neither you nor Fowler, however, have addressed the other argument of mine: why would you suspect that the results would be significantly different even if a larger ratio of self-published books was included in the corpus? No such user (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  "What the fuck" has overtaken "What the heck" in formal usage in the new millennium? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  And speaking of "what the fuck," of the 1,740,000 Books that are thrown up by a Google Book search, how many are "independent, reliable," emblazoned in MOS:CAPS? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The book sources include fiction (novels, etc.), which is where a lot of less formal usage is found. These are rightly included in the stats for how non-specialist writers treat terms such as Indus Valley civilisation. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  >>>That demonstrates academic usage.

  Google ngrams are an aspect of Corpus linguistics. They track your own little corpus "bluntly" and "bullshit" Has the latter overtaken the former in academic usage in the new millennium?

  Please let the closer answer Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

F&f, for all intents, you WP:BADGERED the closer to close the discussion after they relisted it. One should be careful in what they wish for since they may just get it. Well, it happened and now we are here at your instigation. And it continues. I have already answered what anybody not specifically privy to the n-gram project can know. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not badger them. I was attempting to engage them, which they steadfastly refused to do. Please look at the mandatory discussion on the closer's talk page. How insubstantial is that? Not once have they engaged me. Not once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I had a much more productive discussion with Amakuru on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the post at the closers talk page, I would think that their response was more than adequately engaging and they should be commended. In my view, you didn't really invite a constructive exchange of views. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Those were not my words, but those of WP:MRV. Being new to this, I wanted to do it by the book. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, how would you have responded to such a post on your talk page and would you have been as restrained and civil as the closer was? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close as moved (as nom). It is perfectly common for RM discussions to be closed based on a majority vote count rather than on the strength of arguments based in policies, guidelines, and sources. Thankfully, that's not what happened here. When closer first relisted he encouraged opposers to focus more on such reasons than on their opinions, which there are more than plenty of. But there was really no way to spin the source stats in support of caps, in light of policy as stated at WP:NCCAPS, so no good arguments came about. Closer made it clear that he looked at he arguments carefully. I don't see a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Where is the evidence that the closer considered the arguments made by the 70% of the participants? The only evidence we have is that the closer ignored them. Chaipau (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  You mean, evidence-free arguments such as Oppose – Civilization is not a modifier of Indus Valley but is a part of the name (the actual civilization extends well beyond the valley). [RegentsPark] followed by several Oppose per RegentsPark, or Oppose. Generally seen as a proper name. or Oppose. Reliable sources treat this as a proper noun. Or maybe ad-hominem ones such as Oppose for consistency. I distrust proposers who feel they have to keep arguing the toss after every edit., Oppose Any editor so foolishly obsessed on such an unimportant matter that they edit war and get blocked deserves to have their efforts thwarted.. The closer was right to downgrade or outright ignore them. No such user (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  >>>You mean evidence-free arguments such as, "Civilization is not a modifier of Indus Valley but is a part of the name (the actual civilization extends well beyond the valley). [RegentsPark] followed by several Oppose per RegentsPark, or Oppose.

  In your opinion, should RegentsPark have pointed to the third and fourth sentences of Indus Valley Civilisation, which describe the geographical spread of the civilization and thereafter to the Indus River page which describes the river's course? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Both the P&G and the evidence (usage stats, etc.) support this move, and the closer analyzed it correctly. RM is not a head-count vote, and no amount of opinion-mongering trumps P&G and evidence. Same goes for attempts to capitalize because something is "important" (see MOS:SIGCAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  If head-count is bad, then how is only Ngrams count better? (that too used in a partisan manner?) Chaipau (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn (!voted oppose) The closing editor's rationale relies solely on arguments based on ngram numbers, an argument made by a minority of the !voters and does not reference any of the arguments made by the the opposers, a majority of the !voters. Regardless of whether the opposer arguments are valid, the closer needs to clearly state why they are not. Instead, they have dismissed one side as "emotive" and focused solely on the ngram argument. The implication of this is that arguments based on anything other than ngram numbers are not worthy of consideration, or even of mention. If all we're doing is blindly using google ngrams to decide article titles, we could just, for every article, run a bot that tries every possible combination of titles, counts the ngrams, and then move the article to the winner. We don't do that because the community recognizes that blindly using a number is not the best way to both find accurate titles as well as to leave it to content editors to decide on the best title (Newyorkbrad's comment here expresses the latter view cogently). Because the closing editor has chosen to ignore all arguments other than the ngram ones, this RM close should be overturned. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  The biggest problem with F&F's attempts was that he kept focusing on what his favorite experts use as titles, as opposed to in sentences. The first he threw out was Tim Dyson, who has a title-case title, but doesn't cap it in sentences (see my "Bogosity" comment in the RM). And when he wrote What is it you don't understand? We don't capitalize "civilization" everywhere. We do, ideally, only in the page title or section titles. That's exactly what Dyson, Doniger, and the British Museum do. he was both expressing a misunderstanding of our policy and an admission that others often don't cap it sentences. He never acknowledged what our policy is, but kept quoting his own favorite numbers as if they were meaningful. So, yes, his arguments were hardly worthy of consideration, but I'm sure they got considered. You and F&F also both expressed a preference to Indus civilisation at some point, but no serious proposal in that direction was made; a followup RM could do that without objections based on WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS. Your own argument was pretty much nothing but an appeal to "common sense"; I think we did that. And three other opposers were per your argument, whatever that was supposed to mean. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't make any difference what I said in the past. Many of us had not considered the various criteria employed in MOS before. The supporters are all from MOS who have been making their hackneyed arguments for ages. The opposers, many of us experienced Wikipedia editors, some academics, some admins, necessarily, evolved in their thinking as the arguments proceeded. You cannot respond by haggling in fish-market style, saying, "Look but F&f said this, and then they said that but this didn't jibe with that, or with another, so—after I have done my damage to a page of 21 years standing, still stunned how easy it all was, and am now busily employed in removing the curse of "Civilisation," its every vestige, from the brows of Wikipedia, in edit after edit, on page after page—it is they, F&f, who should now reinvent the Indus wheel, write out their arguments in triplicate, drive their cart to post at sites A, B, C, and D, make carbon copies, get a notary to attest their signature, ..." You need to counter my latest argument, that this page move is a slap in the face of MOS:TIES, of MOS:RETAIN, and of the tradition of South Asian Englishes in which the article is written, and that it hurts the claims of Wikipedia to be a global encyclopedia. You should be mindful that by your own admission you know nothing about the Indus Valley Civilisation, have not dipped once in its vast literature, or had made one edit to the large number of Wikipedia pages that have bearing on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter that you call the supporters' arguments "hackneyed". Your ENGVAR arguments have no bearing on the case question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  It was a turn of phrase, the counterpoint to "emotive" of the closer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  And to properly answer your earlier accusation. You know very well that you asked me to go through the Kenoyer felicitation volume: Walking with the Unicorn Social Organization and Material Culture in Ancient South Asia Jonathan Mark Kenoyer Felicitation Volume Edited by Dennys Frenez, Gregg M. Jamison, Randall W. Law, Massimo Vidale and Richard H. Meadow, 2018, Archaeopress Archaeology Publishing, ISBN 978 1 78491 917 7 ISBN 978 1 78491 918 4 (e-Pdf) © ISMEO - Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l'Oriente., and my painstaking evidence (to which you never once replied) showed that among archaeologists and Indus scholars—even those who use the z-variant—capitalization is preferred by a big margin, that out of 197 mentions in running prose less than 10 were not capitalized. Writing in that volume were: Asko Parpola, Monica L. Smith, Rita P. Wright, Iravatham Mahadevan and Richard Meadow. We also know that some 20 or 25 years ago a major change took place. Capitalization soared and lowercasing plummeted in the s-variant.

  It is evident in running prose as well: "in the IVC/c" and "IVC/c is".

  Had you made this change 25 years ago, I wouldn't have uttered a peep. What is the point of making the change now when the whole world is capitalizing in s-variant. It is retrogressive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, would you mind holding off changing the capitalisation of uses of the term throughout Wikipedia's articles (like here)? In at least some instances, this is analogous to what was discussed two months ago (where I thought you must have seen there wasn't community agreement to doing that sort of stuff at scale). At the very least, you wouldn't want to waste hundreds of edits when the decision they're based on is currently being challenged. – Uanfala (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll hold off on that case fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse I agree with the closer. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. I opposed the RM (this is a good time to point out that you're supposed to disclose whether you participated in the RM or not) so it's needless to say that I disagree with the move. My main concern here is that the relist and close comments (by the same editor in the same comment) is a supervote. Both sides have strong arguments in this case -- strength of argument isn't determined by who bludgeons the other side the most or who can be the most verbose -- so it's wrong to dismiss the majority viewpoint in this instance. -- Vaulter 03:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn, as the initiator of this review, and an opposer at the RM. I should like to add in addition to what I have stated at the top initiating the review, and in the link therein, that when editors citing MOS make arbitrary and unannounced interventions on a page, and when closers support their page move in direct opposition to the unanimous views of the content creators of the page, they damage the page, and by consequence, Wikipedia. As an experienced Wikipedian, the major editor of Indus Valley Civilisation, the FA India, British Raj, History of Pakistan, ... I am unhappy that this would be done. I say this as someone who has English grammar books going back to the mid-19th century, and forward to the works of Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Rodney Huddleston, and Ronald Carter, quite a few mentioned in the History of English grammars I wrote on a lark long ago. Although MOS is a phenomenal effort and a valued resource, MOS compulsions in insignificant matters, such as on this page, should not be allowed to create bad blood.

• I should also add that on account of the expected, but still momentous, US Supreme Court decision of yesterday (June 24, 2022), and despite us residing in a state in which the women are not substantially affected by the decision, my immediate family has been affected. I will therefore be taking the summer off to support them. Before I do that, I will be spending the remaining couple of days attending to unfinished business at the Darjeeling FAR and quite a few other pages. I will not be around to engage editors on this page or the article's talk page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn (!voted oppose) , Move request was closed simply based on MOS:CAPS , but MOS:CAPS further links to WP:AT for articles' title issues. There must be a consensus to move such an important article. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:AT links WP:NCCAPS for capitalization issues; it says to leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. Both of these policy pages link to MOS:CAPS and MOS:AT which say to use sentence case in titles. WP:NCCAPS was cited and quoted in the RM discussion, so your assertion that the decision was based only on MOS:CAPS is vacuous. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Words and phrases in a sentence implicitly carry their grammatical properties. Academics have been using "Indus Valley Civilisation" in sentences. This clearly shows that "Indus Valley Civilisation" is a proper name. Of course, You can other phrases like "Indus Valley civilisation" , "Ancient Indus Valley" to represent the same civilisation. You can't use ngrams to cancel grammatical properties of different phrases. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  You may have cited WP:NCCAPS but closer didn't use it. So, My assertion isn't vacuous. Closer didn't consider RM opposers views. That's why there is no concesus. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So far, everyone who has shown up to this move review (except Uanfala) was a participant in the RM. Is it okay to divide this review into two sections, one for comments by original participants and another for uninvolved users' thoughts? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The closing statement found that "there is no consensus on whether a substantial majority of sources that use a capital C can be found". The earlier relisting statement found the same lack of consensus on that question. I think the close is correct on this finding. (Participants have reasonably disagreed on the weight to give to various ngram queries, and how to analyze and interpret the results; on whether to give more weight to certain classes of sources which participants in their editorial judgment see as more reliable; and whether, to the contrary, citing a certain essay, to give such sources less weight.) Where I disagree with the close is on the conclusion to be drawn from this finding. There are three possibilities. 1. If we have consensus that enough sources capitalise, then the RM should be closed as not moved. 2. If we have consensus that not enough sources capitalise, then the RM should be closed as moved. 3. If we have no consensus on whether enough sources capitalise, then the RM should be closed as no consensus. Under RMCI there are these three outcomes, not two. We are in case (3). Adumbrativus (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, your statement is: I think the close is correct on this finding and then you make a parenthetic statement which has the appearance of being a paraphrase of the closers statement. However, this does not appear to be the case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue for the closer was "is there a consensus for this move?" That is not what the closer considered. This closure is too heavily compromised. Chaipau (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The closing statement delineated the types of arguments that the closer felt should be discounted, and did not attempt to recap the other arguments, which presumably weren't discounted. In my parenthetical comment, I mentioned some of the latter type of arguments more explicitly (but non-exhaustively), arguments which I think made it justifiable for a closer to have reached a finding that "there is no consensus on whether a substantial majority of sources that use a capital C can be found". Thank you for the good question – it is not meant as a paraphrase of what the closer wrote, which chose not go into detail in that direction. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn (!voted oppose): The closer relisted the move request with an odd phrasing: The crux of this RM is whether sources use a capital C consistently enough. There is no consensus on whether the sources demonstrate a consistent-enough use of a capital C. At that stage there was a 14-7 vote against the move. In effect the closer had already decided to ignore all the arguments outside an opinionated "crux of this RM". During the relist period evidence was shown that even Ngrams count does not support the move. More importantly, the relist yielded an additional 2-0 vote against the move with the final tally at 16-7. Yet the closer moved the page. It is clear that: (1) the closer had pre-determined the decision with the re-list counting for nothing (2) the closer has shown no evidence that they have considered the arguments made by 70% of the participants in a judicious manner. In effect this closure is no closure at all, but one additional vote for the move (without even an argument, just a per proposer vote). The final tally should be 16-8 against the move awaiting a non-partisan decision. Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Don't forget it's not a vote though, as Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. -13:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, I am aware of WP:DEMOCRACY (and also WP:NOTBURO, which I brought up during the discussion), and I am not making the argument that 16-7 defines the consensus. The argument I am making is that the closer ignored the arguments of more than 2/3rd of the participants. The discussion on Ngrams is still continuing in the talk page (here is the proposer, still making his case, for instance) even after the closure. Clearly there is no consensus on the pivotal evidence the closer used in closing. This closure has been irregular and so deserves to be overturned. Chaipau (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). I'm not commenting on what I think should be the correct title for the article, I'm only commenting on how the RM was closed, as don't want this to just turn into another RM discussion. I agree with Adumbrativus' conclusion that the closer should have gone with "no consensus", and hence not moved the article in this instance, and the closing statement did not address enough of the issues raised, as already mentioned above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) F&f would assert that MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN are significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. F&f would state: ... MOS:TIES for its language of orthography. There is no dispute wrt MOS:TIES that "civilisation" should be spelt as such in consequence in this article. They would then state: In other words, we cannot change midstream in the big river of Standard Englishes from the South Asian Standard English to some other(s) for the purposes of determining capitalization. Where they have linked to orthography, this would state: An orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language, including norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization ... F&f has not established that these conventions vary to any significant extent across the corpus of English and that the question of capitalisation should be confined to a particular domain in the same way as spelling (ie "is" v "iz"). While the guidance quoted is novel and new, the evidence relied upon here is not. Before posting this MR, F&f was made aware that: arguments specifically to "is" and collectively ("is" + "iz") have been addressed in the RM and would not fall to the closer being "unaware" here.

F&f would also assert that the closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Guidance at multiple places makes it clear that strength of argument and not votes determine consensus (WP:RMNOMIN, WP:NHC, Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages). A strong argument is made in respect to acknowledged criteria and particularly WP:P&G, it accurately represents the P&G and it provides evidence (not assertion) to make a cogent case. A strong argument will withstand scrutiny. Most of the comments made, particularly to oppose the RM lack strength. F&f fails to evidence that the closer has failed to follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI and particularly that there are any particularly strong arguments made that should have carried the case. While we could individually address the strength of the various arguments, suffice it to say at this juncture that the closer has reasonably followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. There are no reasonable grounds to overturn the close. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned by a number of commentators here that the close was nothing but a supervote. It is invalid. Chaipau (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment since this is WP:NOTAVOTE, we cannot offer passing opinions without a close analysis and expect our comments to carry weight. To this end, I have made a close analysis at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 1. From this, I would conclude that most of the comments made on both sides of the discusstion were of no significant weight but IMHO, the only comments of substantial weight were made in support of the move. They addressed the criteria established by WP:P&G and drew reasonable and rational conclusions from evidence presented. Many commenters here would suggest that the close has totally ignored comments made by one side. The closer makes two pertinent statements; the first: I am noting this as many voters !voted based on what they personally believed is correct usage (ie not made in consideration of the prevailing WP:P&G) This is a valid observation of the RM discussion. Secondly: This is a classic case of a debate where one side has an emotive majority but the other side has the much stronger arguments. Perhaps some may take umbrage to their comments being described as "emotive". Perhaps "subjective" or "unsubstantiated" opinion might be a better description but the meaning is not so dissimilar and an accurate assessment. The evidence (ie the RM) supports that the closer has weighed the comments in accordance with WP:P&G and the close is sound. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break 2 (Indus Valley civilisation)

• Endorse. F&F initiation of this MR does not challenge the closer’s compliance with RMCI but merely attempts to rehash the RM. Did or did not the closer follow the intent and spirit of RMCI? I think the closer did. Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: WP:RMNOMIN in WP:RMCI points to WP:TITLECHANGES which suggests that If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. The title has been stable for about 21 years on the capitalization issue, as has been pointed out numerous times. Thus the onus was on the proposer to show that there was a good reason for a change, and the closer should have examined whether there was a consensus on the good reason. Instead the closer stated thus: The crux of this RM is whether sources use a capital C consistently enough. There is no consensus on whether the sources demonstrate a consistent-enough use of a capital C. which assumes the opposite - that the title was wrong and the onus was on the defenders to seek consensus for their position. I am sure many would be surprised if if it were to be asserted that there is a consensus on this point. So I cannot agree with you. This closure violates the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn. The close was such an obvious supervote that it can't have any validity. The whole exercise becomes meaningless if we go with such closes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved, voted against the move; note that several of the above !votes are also involved but did not declare so). Note that I am not saying "overturn to not moved / no consensus" but rather just "Overturn" as this was not a good closure. First off, it's not necessarily a problem for a non-admin to be willing to tackle tough closes, but this is not how you do it. Decrying votes in opposition as being "emotive" might be valid if, say, there was a swarm of new accounts recruited from Reddit that argued along nationalist grounds. But nothing of the sort happened. All of the oppose votes were in good faith and based on valid WP:AT criteria. The ngrams arguably favored the existing title, and ngrams are known to be tricky to interpret anyway. Now, maybe, maybe there's a reason to move this anyway (I think Amakuru had a well-reasoned vote to move, for example, despite disagreeing with it), which is why I am voting for overturn & let someone else reclose it. But it should come from a trusted and experienced closer, and if the result is "move", it should do so on grounds other than merely dismissing opposer's arguments as "emotive", which is not really a way to sell the move when many of the opposers are long-tenured editors with plenty of experience. (It is also worth noting that article titling is something where relying on raw consensus is less dangerous than, say, copyright cleanup... as long as a name isn't directly *wrong* somehow, there usually isn't a harm in letting a long-standing title continue, which is why normally moves expect something more than a 50/50 split. Which didn't even come close here anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). If we allow a closer to effectively ignore what most participants in the debate actually say in favour of their own interpretation of "rules" then we make a nonsense of the whole RM discussion process. Why do we bother discussing anything? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) if we don't want to throw WP:NOTAVOTE out of the window. There is no doubt that the current wording of MOS:CAPS and RM practice so far, with the provided body of evidence in form of ngrams and quotations, favor the move: for capitalization the MOS requires substantial majority of reliable soures, and ~50% does not qualify even nearly for "substantial". Trying to invoke MOS:TIES or MOS:RETAIN and plethora of other arguments is just throwing dust. The closing statement was clear and unambiguous: the proposed move is supported by policy. Arguments to overturn it amount to argumentum ad populum. No such user (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (!voted oppose), NCERT-textbooks use " Indus Valley Civilisation" in sentences. This civilisation article is most visited by Indian students. "Indus Valley Civilisation" is a proper name. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (!voted oppose) per RegentsPark and in part SnowFire - and without a close analysis my feeling is that no consensus may be a more reasonable close. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone has cited Google ngrams including myself. I eventually went to the Google site to read what ngrams are about. Their main use, apparently, is in cultural and language studies, in studying changes in the use of expressions and collocations over time, Google Books being considered a type of language corpus. Example: Sometime during a substantial stay in England in the early 1990s, I thought to myself, "Hmm, people are using 'kidding' a lot more than they used to," and chalked it up to more people watching American TV shows which seemed to be highly popular. I can view that on Google ngrams in the evolution of "kidding" vs "joking" in both British and American books. It confirms my intuition that sometime in the 1980s, the more common British expression "joking" began to give way to "kidding." The same had happened in American books but earlier. Google doesn't care about reliability. Because for a language corpus to be reliable it is not necessary for the books in its database to be published by reliable publishers. In fact, the less the books are monitored for improper usage, the more reliable is the corpus. So, I am asking, Question: "Does Google ngrams include self-published books?" If it does, then how does their use square with MOS:CAPS: "substantial majority of independent reliable sources?" This can be easily seen when comparing "indus valley civilization" in books published by university presses, which is 1300, and those published by a handful of self-publishers, which is nearly 800. Culture studies folk obviously do want self-published books, Fify Shades of Grey being one. Please don't tell me, "This is not the place for this question." I know it is not, but please humor me this once. I have to start a Wiki break soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I've not looked into it at all, but maybe https://storage.googleapis.com/books/ngrams/books/datasetsv3.html or one of the articles it links to can help answer that? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question with any certainty. However, I did follow the links per Kj cheetham to publications here and here. In the latter, it describes that most books in the n-gram corpus were drawn from the libraries of 40 universities and that additional works were provided from publishers. Further, the corpus is a subset of Google Books - ie not all works from a Google Book search for a particular search string will be represented in n-gram corpus and the corresponding n-gram search for the same string. From the information I have, one can neither exclude nor conclude whether self-published works make up the n-gram corpus. Does this invalidate the n-gram evidence for the purpose of determining capitalisation to be used by WP? I would refer you to our discussion during the RM: this is not a case to be be settled by the rules of grammar, but by usage. and that a capitalised form (IVC) can be considered to be a proper name if it becomes institutionalised. Is this not then a study of language and precisely what the n-gram viewer was intended for? It provides access to a statistically significant random sample that allows us to address the question: is it capitalised in a substantial majority of sources? That is far better than the alternative of each side cherry-picking sources until one side runs out or gives up. Though MOS:CAPS would state independent, reliable sources, does the unsubstantiated possibility of the n-gram corpus including sources that are not WP:RSs preclude it from being used as evidence? Independent, reliable sources does not mean academic sources but includes more generalist sources - as much as you might dismiss the idea. And we should also consider WP:SSF. Even if it did rely on some non-WP:RSs it would still serve as good indicator of usage in WP:RSs. It would assume that the usage in non-WP:RSs is similar to that in WP:RSs and or that the proportion of non-WP:RSs is small and not sufficient to significantly affect the results. It is possible to test this assumption and I would hypothesise that non-WP:RSs are more likely to capitalise in much the same way and for much the same reasons as WP:SSF. Indeed, DL reports such a finding, albeit on a small sample. However, that is hypothetical, since I cannot confirm your concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest. You do realise that a simple search for "indus valley civilisation" in Google Books throws books half of which do not meet WP:RS requirements. Children's books, the self-published, vanity-press published, back-alley published, are mixed with the reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, books half of which. This is a quantitative observation. I am interested as to the evidence that would substantiate this claim. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I read "half of which" as a figurative expression, not a quantitative claim. Nevertheless, when I do search for "indus valley civilisation", the first two books are "general knowledge" type of books ([10], [11], and only the third is by a known authority [12]. This result is unsettling to me. The first two may be RS for WP, but we do know that many in Google Books have been identified as not reliable for WP purposes. Here is the [13]] of one such discussion.

The bottom line seems to be that the use of Google Books and, by extension, Google Ngrams require discussion and consensus. For our case, we don't seem to have a consensus on the use of Ngrams data. Chaipau (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The nature of biases in the n-gram stats has been discussed pretty extensively in this RM, and elsewhere. It's well established that they bias toward over-counting capitalized uses, for multiple reasons, including counting uses in titles, headings, citations, and other title-case contexts, and recently also by amateur and self-published materials that are more likely to have been influenced by over-capitalization in Wikipedia. Nobody has shown any mechanism for, or evidence of, bias in the other direction. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Despite the many places you have written many hundreds of words on the topic, there is no consensus that your interpretation of ngrams is correct and/or relevant in every case, specifically including this one. I also do not see consensus that Wikipedia is over-capitalised, let alone that this is some sort of problem we have exported to the world at large. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not alleging that "Wikipedia is over-capitalised". Rather that when certain phrases in Wikipedia are over-capitalized in titles, that has an outsize influence on writers who use that phrase. Whether it's true or not, it's a good idea not to peg a theory of proper name status on a very recent blip up in capitalization, which is what the fans of capitalized Civilisation did in the RM and repeated here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved, voted support). This is not really a close case when considering the evidence. The wording of MOS:CAPS is crystal clear that a substantial majority of sources must capitalise for us to follow suit. While the title case version may enjoy a narrow lead with some variants of the title (-ize- vs -ise-, valley vs not valley etc), it does not at all rise to the level of a substantial majority. There really is nothing more to this, no concrete evidence was presented to counter this either here or in the "overturn" !votes above, and the closer had no choice but to close the way they did.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Substantial majority was, in fact, shown (70.95% for IVC and 29.05% for IVc). This is the latest 2019 count and the trend was widening further. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Adding the link to Ngrams here for all to see. Chaipau (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  That cherry-picked stat reminds me that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you apologize for calling someone a liar under WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. This stat was picked with consideration not to conflate the issue with s/z spellings and not to conflate with smoothing artifacts. The result is very clear---from around 2015 there has been a strong trend towards IVC and away from IVc, and by 2019 it has become 2 to 1 head to head. There is no lie here. Chaipau (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I hadn’t thought about this myself but MOS:CAPS says, “a substantial majority of independent, reliable, sources." My understanding is that ngrams search all books in the Google database, including the scholarly (the most reliable) and the self-published (the least reliable). A case in point (see my comment and question above) is my being able to whip up 800 self-published sources using the expressions “IVC/c” from a small handful of vanity publishers but only 1300 from among universities' presses of which there are dozens in the US alone. A big question is: Was the closer aware that Google ngrams don’t gauge usage among reliable books, but indiscriminately among all books? If they weren’t aware then this fact constitutes the reason: "the closer was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion” (that grams search among an indiscriminate collection not among a reliable collection) and at the very least "the discussion should be reopened and relisted." A priori, Google has no automated way of determining reliability when experts have a hard time. On the other hand, if the closer was aware, how did they decide that the substantial majority of reliable sources do not favor capitalization? What other evidence was presented by Dicklyon that was convincing? Alternatively still, if the closer knows somehow that Google ngrams do search only among independent and reliable publishers, then please tell us how and why this is the case. Granted I should have asked that question at the top of the page, and a potential closer could disregard this objection for bureaucratic reasons, but the question is serious and it will remain. @Mellohi!, Dicklyon, SMcCandlish, DrVogel, and Cinderella157: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ngrams from Google is actually a serious issue. Not just do we have to consider the source of the corpus created by Google, as you F&f have pointed out, there are many other problems. One of the disagreement has been on the use of smoothing. Google seems to be using a simple moving window to smooth it. This is not the best smoothing method one could use because smoothing artifacts show up. For example, the peak in 1900 show up as an asymmetrical plateau after smoothing by window size 10---and even though the red and blue lines are just peaks of different magnitudes, they show up with different features after the smoothing because of distant noise. Some of the inferences that we have been making after smoothing will sound very different if we were to use other smoothing techniques such as wavelet transform, Savitzky-Golay filter or Loess. I submit that none of the inferences, based on uncritical application of the smoothing provided with Ngrams, is believable. There cannot be any reasonable consensus on their use. Chaipau (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know much about those more complicated filters. I was asking a more basic question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Ngrams use has both the RS issue and the smoothing issue. These issues are not mutually exclusive. One of them, unfortunately, is a little technical. A close based on Ngrams alone is flawed. Chaipau (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not really interested in that other issue. You should raise the fancy math stuff independently of my simple question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, my question applies to ngrams without any smoothing. It applies to the raw data collected by Google.

  I am suggesting that even there Google might be unable to search in the subset of independent reliable books, because it very likely has no algorithm for determining reliability, and no motivation for finding one, as its primary use is in a large heterogeneous set. In my "kidding" vs. "joking" example, the bigger the data set: street conversations, fiction, fantasy, film, non-fiction, self-published works, ... the better it is for tracking evolving use of those two words in the language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Google Ngrams is based on corpora created periodically from the entire scanned Google Books. We have been using the version released in 2019 for this RM. Are there self-published books in Google Books? Are there books in Google Books that are not RS for WP? Yes, there are and you know it. Google Books is the bane of WP because people search for their favorite quotes and cite them here.

  The point in this thread is that even if Ngrams were to be acceptable (should not be), the claim of substantive majority fails on statistical grounds. Chaipau (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is not my point. Please don't waste my time with nonsense. What the heck is your problem? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: if what I stated (and added to your argument) is not your point what is? I have stated in good faith what looks important to me exactly as I see them. I am OK with your stating your opinion too, though I am a little taken aback by your tone. Chaipau (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I apologize for the intemperate outburst, but would like to state in earnest that you not interleave your arguments with mine no matter how relevant, supportive, pressing, or complementary they appear. I fear that by entangling the two issues, you have impeded communication, which is fraught as it is. When the arguments are stated independently, they are more easily understood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Accepted. Also makes sense. Chaipau (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• MR is WP:NOTAVOTE At Wikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews: an uninvolved editor will determine whether a consensus exists. Assessing the outcome of this discussion is no different from assessing the consensus of any WP discussion in that (unsubstaniated) opinions carry little weight compared with a strong argument that is evidenced and reasoned on the basis of WP:P&G. I think it ironic to have to point this out in this particular case that most of the comments made essentially fall to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT style !votes. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  But you haven’t answered my question whether you knew at the time of the RfC or during this move review discussion that Google ngrams are not based on sampling either independent or reliable books, the backbone of MOS:CAPS? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if the n-gram corpus includes sources that are not considered to be WP:RSs. I am sorry that my priorities may not coincide with yours but you may have guessed I was in the process of providing you with an answer when you made this post. Perhaps you might extend to me the same courtisy and eventually answer my question here. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, this whole "but ngrams may also contain unreliable sources!" meme is yet another example of throwing a lot of shit in the hope some will stick, so common tactics in this whole sorry episode. We don't really know the ratio of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources in the Google's corpus, and it does not matter at all. What we do know is that the corpus is so large that it covers a substantial majority of reliable sources on whatever subject is being discussed, and thus it has been used in article title discussions since forever, so your raising of this issue is yet another attempt at FUD. Furthermore. we don't have any reason to suspect that "unreliable" sources in the corpus would favor IVC or IVc, so any bias towards any of the versions is just a wild conjecture of yours. No such user (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Google ngrams are used in culture- and language studies to track usage; they are an aspect of Corpus linguistics

"What we do know is that the corpus is so large that it covers a substantial majority of reliable sources on whatever subject is being discussed, ..."

But then it must cover the substantial majority of unreliable sources as well and they could be larger.

"it has been used in article title discussions since forever"

Perhaps you could point to a previous discussion in which someone has raised this issue and it has been answered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn While I may have ultimately !voted support had I participated, this appears to be a pretty clear WP:SUPERVOTE of a closing that uses its own interpretation of the guidelines to determine a consensus that very clearly does not exist in the discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (reclose) was Endorse (uninvolved) The MOS:CAPS arguments are very strong, the regardless of if all the matching items found by ngrams can be used as source, ngrams is usable to show common capital usage is not consistent. I also question the use of 10-year smoothing as counter argument to the close. Looking at this chart without smoothing, the various cycles of ups and downs seem to be about 10 years apart, which means using 10 year smoothing can amplify noise such as the local min at around 2011. That said I do have one concern with the close. While the arguments on if IVC is a proper name seem to be no-consensus, if there was consensus that it was a proper name, that would be an exception to MOS:CAPS. This relisting comment would have been better if it had been clearer on the proper name part of the discussion in reframing the remaining issues for the close, see WP:RMRELIST. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  As for names, RegentsPark has said it all. If Indus Valley were a pre-modifier for the noun phrase head "civilisation," the urban culture the phrase denotes would not have included sites in the valleys of other major rivers, such as Badakhshan in the valley of the Amu Darya which empties into the Aral Sea, Sutkagan Dor in the valley of Dasht River emptying into the Persian Gulf, Mohenjo-daro on the right bank of the Indus, which empties into the Arabian Sea and Kalibangan near the Ganges, which empties into the Bay of Bengal. It is a proper name.

  As for ngrams, there is no proof that they sample trends in the "independent, reliable" sources of the MOS:CAPs exhortation. The Google Books corpus is one of the many of Corpus linguistics. A simple search for "indus valley civilisation" there shows that it has children's books, ruminations by civil servants, by retirees, by nationalists, by sub-nationalists, by scholars, by bloggers, by people searching for aliens, ... the works. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, what RegentsPark actually said at the RM was: Civilization is not a modifier of Indus Valley but is a part of the name. This is true and you and I engaged in a discussion on the semantics of grammar in respect to this. It is not considered civil to misrepresent what has been said by another editor. When they more fully stated: (the actual civilization extends well beyond the valley), you are now asserting that they were stating that there is a semantic difference between IVC and IVc. This was certainly not made clear and definitely not evidenced (ie it is an opinion). Both you and they had the opportunity to substantiate this when we discussed the matter in detail. It is not the purpose of a MR to rehash the RM and give either side an opportunity to make a better case and have a second bite of the cherry. There was plenty of time to get it right the first time and it was you that kept pressuring for a close. However, the line you would now pursue is easily refuted. Ab initio both terms describe a civilisation in (or about) the Indus valley. It is only with further information that the extent of the civilisation is fully known. There is nothing to suggest that this further information applies disproportionately to the terms. It is a philosophical agrument where the premises are not established in a case where linguistics is argued and acknowledged as the prevailing framework (ie that the capitalised form is institutionalised). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Indus Valley Civilisation is the mature urban part of the "Indus Valley Tradition," which covers the entire sequence from Neolithic, such as Mehrgarh, to Chalcolithic, such as Nausharo, to urban such as Mohenjo-daro. Here is the Google ngram for "Indus Valley Tradition" and "Indus Valley tradition" It has no smoothing. Would you say the substantial majority of books on Google (forget the independent and reliable bit) captalize? If not, why not? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can see it even better if you see map from 1990 onward when the spread begins, again without smoothing.

  Would you say that is the substantial majority of sources capitalize? If not, why not? What constitutes substantial? I could find the area under the two curves?

  If it is does constitute substantial, then how is it that the larger "Tradition" lasting from 7000BCE to 1300 BCE is capitalized, but the smaller urban in it (IVc) lasting from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE is not? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Update: The more I think about the relisting comment, the less I think that I can endorse. The ngrams might be strong, but common usage is only a part of MOS::CAPS, and a better discussion of some of the exceptions might have been useful. In particular there is contention on if the ngram sources might meet independent, reliable sources required by MOS::CAPS. (see some of the replies to my original !vote for examples.) I am not convinced that considering the sourceness is existing practice despite the wording of MOS::CAPS, but it weighs consideration. I'm not specifically !voting for moved, not-moved or no consensus, but ask the closer to weigh the exceptions to MOS::CAPS and discussion of the ngrams both here and in the RM if reclosing. PaleAqua (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  What are the exceptions to MOS:CAPS that you see that should be weighed? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe where it says "where the term is consistently capitalized in sources, or where a whole bunch of editors like caps better for a term that's special to them"? Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm starting to feel it's perhaps getting towards WP:BLUDGEON in this review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse <uninvolved> per Amakuru and others above. Closure was reasonable, and that's the only reason we're here. So please don't expect me to engage in discussion that re-argues the move request. It's done, and there's an end to it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Final comment by Fowler&fowler Tomorrow is my last day on Wikipedia for several months.
• What have I come away with?
• The negatives first: I don't expect any great changes. I don't think they don't know much about ngrams at MOS though they've been using them on faith as a result of watching others whose collegiality they value use them on faith. For no one has been able to answer my simple question: whether they knew ngrams do not sample the "independent, reliable" sources, or that one can easily whip up as many self-published sources as university-presses-published? Apparently, I am the first to raise it. There are also people here the shifting sands under whose feet begin to give way at the slightest intellectual threat. They then brandish glorified Aesop's fables in the form of Wikipedia guidelines.
• The positives: I verified my intuition gleaned in Cambridge, England, in the early 1990s about the evolution of "kidding" vs "joking". I verified the widespread capitalization of "Indus Valley Tradition." I had been asked by user:Doug Weller some ten years ago if there was a need for an article on it, and I said no, to my great regret today, for IVC/c (fl. 2600 BCE–1900 BCE) is a subset of the Indus Valley Tradition (ca 7000 BCE–1300 BCE). The capitalization in the latter reflects reliable sources, as no one but academics uses that expression. I even calculated the areas under the two curves Indus Valley Tradition and Indus Valley tradition for my own understanding. I learned something from user:RegentsPark's smart remark that "civilisation" is not the head of a noun phrase pre-modified by "Indus Valley," for there are many IVC sites in other major river valleys, such as Amu Darya or Ganges unconnected to the Indus, and emptying into different bodies of water.
• Whether or not I will come back to edit the Indus Valley civilisation article remains to be seen. Very likely other content creators who didn't see the point of this silly sniping excursion will have similar ambivalence. So what then has been the net gain? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• I love Wikipedia. On what seems to be the least contentious discussion possible, a C vs c battle got us a discussion apparently exceeding 35,000 words and 280 kilobytes of page content (so far that is). What an incredible waste of time and effort on everyone's part. And in some cases, (gross) incivility — an editor calling someone "liar" and someone constantly pinging the relister, attempting to sway them isn't something I hoped to see in those huge threads. Anyway, back to the point. I'd say Overturn [as uninvolved]: To me the close looks more a WP:SUPERVOTE. Ofcourse WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and closes are made by weight of arguments rather than number of !votes. But, here I cannot see the "pro-lowercase" side have strong enough arguments to override the perfectly valid opinions of 70% commentators. The number of Cs, as of today, does outweigh the number of cs in ngrams. And Wikipedia lives in the present, not in the past and not in the future. Grammar issues were raised by both sides, but I'm no language specialist to judge whose argument takes the pie. But, what I know is, with a capital C that shows valid and acceptable usage globally, I see no genuine *harm* being caused by the uppercase title. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially when there *isn't* any real consensus in favor of change. Take with it WP:TITLECHANGES. If a discussion doesn't get consensus for a change and when something is *this* controversial so as to log 35k words of debate, it is good to leave it as it has been for 21 years! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Last_Comment, MOS:CAPS says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below. Then it started to give exceptions. The most important exception are WP:AT and proper names. To my understanding, "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" isn't applicable to WP:AT names like IVC which uniquely identifies one and only one civilization. Being a name (proper name), the IVC qualifies to be capitalized for article title as done by academics. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn (opposed in the RM) per Kautila, RegentsPark, F&F and others. I think the major sources on the subject do capitalize, which ngrams don't catch - there is a vast literature. Close looks like a supervote. It's clear that all the regular contributors opposed, & the supports had never edited the article previously. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  This kind of "I think" opinion was presented in the RM, and is hardly relevant to the MR. F&f's "I think" first referred to Dyson as one that capitalized; I showed that Dyson does not. If "all the regular contributors opposed", it's a classic "specialist" style preference of people who like to cap what's important to them. No need to repeat that here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). This appears to be a supervote as there was extensive discussion in the article, and ngrams were just one aspect of that and there was very clearly no consensus among participants about their relevance or validity. The other aspects were not addressed by the closer at all, despite forming the basis of many arguments. Either "not moved" or "no consensus to move" would be valid readings of that discussion, but there was very definitely no consensus to move. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved). I agree with the above editors who endorsed, especially those who pointed to WP:NOTAVOTE. I would add: The only argument that has been raised for reopening the RM is F&F’s point about ngrams including non-RS. Even if that’s the case, however, it does not justify overturning the RM. MOS:CAPS makes clear that the burden of demonstrating an exception lies on those seeking it; failing a showing that a substantial majority of RS capitalize the term, the default is to lowercase it. F&F has not made such a showing; at best, he has merely suggested that we don’t know what a substantial majority of sources do. Clearly many editors disagree that F&F has achieved even that much, but the point is that they have not made the showing required of them, so there is no reason to reopen the discussion.
• One additional point:
• Whether or not I will come back to edit the Indus Valley civilisation article remains to be seen. Very likely other content creators who didn't see the point of this silly sniping excursion will have similar ambivalence. So what then has been the net gain?
• This is textbook WP:HIGHMAINT behavior and should be strongly discouraged. Ultimatums like that are inappropriate no matter the issue, and if contributors at Indus Valley civilisation wish to storm off the project because they don’t get to capitalize a term that is important to them, they are welcome to go. Wallnot (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I !voted to overturn, but I 100% agree that making these sorts of subtle threats is not acceptable behavior. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

    Comment: I've been emailed twice about this misinterpretation—that in a huff, I had somehow made a threat of sorts and went off on a vacation on false pretenses.

    Well, my Wikibreak is about bigger issues related to my family as my talk page post makes clear, and other posts had made clear a week earlier, the day of the US Supreme Court announcement.

    After making my Wikibreak announcement, I have not found it easy to stay away from Wikipedia. POV-warriors have emerged 13 to a dozen to edit the pages whose neutrality I have worked hard to ensure, sending me stumbling into responding, and then regretting my actions later.

    But there is one thing I haven't done. And that is to think about this article.

    Am I human? Yes. Can't I force myself to work equably on something that holds no attraction for me, regarding it as a duty? I can't.

    So far removed this article already is from my concerns. So far removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3 (Indus Valley civilisation)

• Overturn to no consensus defaulting to "not moved" <uninvolved>. The closure is mostly correct, and many of the overturn !votes above aren't terribly persuasive. In particular, the closer rightly zeroed in on the MOS:CAPS issue and discounted !votes that weren't grounded in policies and guidelines. I also agree that there is no consensus on whether a substantial majority of sources that use a capital C can be found, but I part ways with the closer over what that lack of consensus means. Ordinarily, "In article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title". The closer seemed to think that MOS:CAPS inverted this rule, defaulting toward no capitalization when there's no consensus. But MOS:CAPS simply doesn't say that. Unlike guidelines that do deviate from the usual rule (WP:BURDEN, WP:ELBURDEN, WP:BLPUNDEL, etc.), it doesn't mention the "burden of proof" at all. Since MOS:CAPS doesn't say what to do when there's no consensus on whether the substantial-majority threshold is met, the ordinary rule – default to the most recent prior stable title – applies. And that means that I agree with Adumbrativus that since there was no consensus on the MOS:CAPS issue, the article shouldn't have been moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS opens: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. This reasonably creates a burden that caps must be necessary. It continues: Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized. This then becomes a matter of verifiability (a core policy) and a need to show that a term is conventionally capitalised. WP:VER includes WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. The burden and onus is then to show that a term is conventionally capitalised. MOS:CAPS then continues to explain how this can be shown. So, when the closer woud state (and you would affirm): there is no consensus on whether a substantial majority of sources that use a capital C can be found, there is no consensus that the capitalisation is necessary and that the burden to show it is has not been discharged. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS indeed opens: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. But this does not create a burden, just a policy. A policy cannot be made to bear a burden. The burden is created by WP:VER which demands that any claim that is made is verifiable. Only a claimant can be made to bear a burden. (e.g. the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt) Thus the question for the closer was whether there exists a clear consensus (beyond reasonable doubt) on the claim by the requester that the capitalization is un-necessary. The closer failed here, in part. Chaipau (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I used an analogy to demonstrate who bears the burden. But WP:BURDEN makes this even more clear: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (bolded, as in original). In other words, the burden lies with the editor making the change, and in our case, the editor(s) seeking change. Chaipau (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But that’s the point. The “change” is modifying the MOS rule, which in this case means carving out an exception to MOS:CAPS. Thats not the same as addition or removal of content. As we have shown, MOS makes clear that the burden lies on the editors arguing for the exception, because the default is to lowercase it. No one has persuasively argued that Fowler et al. actually showed that a substantial majority of reliable sources consistently uppercase IVc.

Under your reading of BURDEN, an editor would have to seek consensus every time they applied a straightforward MOS rule. That defeats the purpose of having guidelines at all. Wallnot (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the change requested is IVC -> IVc. WP:VER is not required to make changes to policies. Looking for exceptions in policies is not making changes to policies. I was replying to Cinderella157 on the claim that the policy creates a burden. A policy cannot create a burden. Chaipau (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the sloppy language. I should have said that MOS:CAPS does not create a burden. WP:VER does. And it places it on editors, not policies. Chaipau (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The change requested is dictated by a long-standing guideline. Those seeking an exception to a straightforward application of a long-standing guideline bear the burden of demonstrating that the exception is warranted; when the guideline itself provides that exceptions will be made only in limited circumstances, those seeking the exception need to show that those circumstances exist.

Since CAPS exceptions require a specific set of circumstances, and no one has showed that those circumstances exist, it follows that no exception can be made.

Also, as you yourself point out, there’s nothing in BURDEN to suggest that it applies to changes to guidelines. By its terms it’s a rule only for content. Wallnot (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please go over the language of the WP:BURDEN. I don't want to repeat myself. I can only point out that you are applying it very creatively.

Second, the burden is on the change agents to seek consensus on the sections of MOS that are applicable and the exceptions that aren't, as per VER. There has been a robust discussion on many of these, and if you went through the discussion you'd notice that there has been no consensus on any of these claims. The closer just cast a supervote. Chaipau (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you are claiming "long-standing guideline", I was curious when the name IVC appeared on Wikipedia and what the state of MoS was on that day. The day was 15 November 2001. The IVC page was created with a capital "C", but the MoS did not even have a CAPS section. IVC is longer-standing than MOS:CAPS! The day (24 Feb 2006) the CAPS subpage was created, the page did not even have the phrase "unnecessary capitalization" in it. Chaipau (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Great, now that the guideline has been changed, it sounds like it’s time to bring the page title in line with it.

To your other point, I have read the guideline. By its terms, it applies to:

• all quotations,
• all material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• all material that is likely to be challenged, and
• all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The page title is not any of those. This is not a debate about content but about the application of an MOS guideline. Nowhere in BURDEN or WP:V more broadly does it say it applies to the interpretation of guidelines.

I also disagree with your claim that there is a lack of consensus as to which MOS rules apply. The starting point of the debate is that MOS:CAPS applies (because it plainly does). The question is whether this falls under one of the exceptions. Right now, no one has showed that a substantial majority of reliable secondary sources capitalizes IVc. So the answer to that question is no. Wallnot (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The way you are interpreting rhe rule flips it on its head. If you require editors who want to apply MOS:CAPS to first show that a substantial majority of reliable sources lowercase it, youre rewriting the rule. Thats not what it says, so thats not what we should do. Wallnot (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the entire process has been under WP:RM not under MOS:CAPS. We are not re-litigating the issues here. Chaipau (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a non sequitur since where you place the burden is outcome determinative for purposes of this MR and important to the RM as well. Wallnot (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The evidence shows otherwise. The process has been under WP:RM and this current discussion under WP:RMCI. The WP:RM process does not admit an automatic and default position for MOS:CAPS. Note:

• On June 8 a RM/TR request was made to move IVC to IVc with the claim it was uncontroversial by the eventual requestor. And it was moved.
• Within the hour the move was challenged and it was moved back to IVC.

Had MOS:CAPS enjoyed an elevated position there would have been no revert to IVC and the burden would have fallen on the IVc -> IVC position to seek consensus for the move. On the other hand, the situation was for the IVC -> IVc to seek consensus.

Furthermore, WP:THREEOUTCOMES suggests that the page could have been moved only when consensus is found to rename the page. When there was no consensus Of course, as elsewhere on Wikipedia, this usually means that no action is to be taken at the present time. In other words, only when the movers are able to show consensus in there a move. In other words, the burden was on the movers, not on the others. And this is arule that applies across Wikipedia as pointed out. Chaipau (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we’ve identified the source of the disagreement then. The burden in the RM is indeed on the editors seeking the move. But in the RM itself, the outcome—consensus for move, consensus for no move, or no consensus—depends on MOS:CAPS. Since this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and no one has made a showing that a substantial majority of reliable sources capitalize the term, the consensus is for the move. If you can’t present any evidence justifying why we should ignore MOS:CAPS, then it applies, and there is consensus for the move, no matter how many editors come out of the woodwork to say we should capitalize it because it’s important.

But there’s no need to relitigate the RM, because the only question in this MR is whether something new has come to light that would call into question the outcome of the RM. No one has presented any new evidence indicating that a substantial majority of reliable sources capitalize the term, so I don’t see how that could be the case. Wallnot (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Since the closer placed the burden on those who opposed the RM instead, the closing is based on considerations outside the THREEOUTCOMES and is thus flawed.

And No. MOS:CAPS enjoys no special role in this RM, and it deserves only the weight due to it. RMNOMIN suggests "unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules". Though stated in a different context, this is in the spirit of the fundamental WP:5P5. MOS:CAPS is subject to consensus and like all other rules can be ignored.

Chaipau (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I can only observe that this is a novel spin on WP:RMNOMIN. It would state: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. MOS:CAPS is one of these guidelines - through WP:AT and WP:NCCAPS. There is no reasonable case made to argue otherwise, either here or at the RM. MOS:CAPS does [enjoy] a special role in this RM. It deservese the weight due it. WP:RMNOMIN continues: Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. By this, the closer is required to give weight due the broader community consensus. MOS:CAPS would require caps are necessarily and conventionally used. If there is no consensus that a term meets these requirements, the MOS:CAPS defaults to lowercase. The closer has closed accordingly. You would miss that point. MOS:CAPS is subject to the broader community consensus and can be changed. But, until it is, it reflects the broader community consensus. It is weighed accordingly. Yes, like all rules, it can can be ignored. But unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules [emphasis added]. But it comes with a caveat that has not been established. This tenet of your argument acknowledges the rule but, without good reason, is self-defeating. In my view, this whole argument is a dead parrot horse. It isn't going to voom no matter how hard you flog it (not even with 40,000 volts). It isn't going to fly even if you pour 50 gallons (neither US nor imperial) of Red Bull down its throat. Some humour/banter Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the banter. I don't need long winded convoluted arguments here.

• I have specifically said that WP:RMNNOMIN is not the context in this case. I have just used it to illustrate the applicability of WP:5P5 universally in Wikipedia and that MOS:CAPS is no exception. WP:5P5 is no dead horse.
• No amount of distractions will get you past the fact that the close made mincemeat of WP:THREEOUTCOMES.

Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No distractions here, and No one has made mincemeat of THREEOUTCOMES. As Cinderella points out, there’s an existing consensus behind CAPS. The RM failed to establish a consensus that the exception criteria to CAPS had been met, so the consensus is to apply the existing guideline. You haven’t presented any "very good reasons" to IAR, and, anyways, that was a discussion for the RM, which is over now. Wallnot (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note. This discussion (and the original RM) have been listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page) (also transcluded in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Style discussions elsewhere since 26 June. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That’s not canvassing, it’s textbook WP:APPNOTE, which allows for posting at The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. Wallnot (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note As the initiator of the WP:MVR of 25 June 2022, I'd like to sum up the voting statistics 18 days later:

  Thus far 27 people have voted, 17 to overturn and of these seven were uninvolved. In opposition, 10 people have endorsed and four were uninvolved. In RM begun by Dicklyon on 8 June 2022 that led to this MRV, 16 people had opposed the move, seven had supported it. The page was moved by mellohi on 23 June 2022.

My best argument remains that at the time of the closing the closer of the RM was not aware that Google ngrams do not reflect the "independent, reliable sources," whose support, or lack thereof, the injunctions of MOS:CAPS abstract. Indeed, until I made the point in a conversation above on June 27, 2022, no one on MOS had considered this idea. Despite my asking the closer several times they have not responded. In the rare instances in which ngrams do reflect academic usage, as in the "Indus Valley Tradition," a term invented in the mid-1980s, and employed for the culture lasting from 6500 BCE to 1300 BCE of which the Indus Valley Civilisation (lasting from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE) is the mature urban part, it is clear what they say. I have lost interest in the article. In my view, such unannounced sniping excursions by editors who are unfamiliar with an article's content do a great disservice to Wikipedia. They have a chilling effect on the creation of new content. Someone should close this MRV whichever way they want. No one has voted in a week and the damage to the article has already been done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to second the sentiment expressed regarding the "chilling effect" this entire exercise has had on content creators. This is an honest confession, and Wikipedia needs less of this chilling effect. Chaipau (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do good faith attempts to apply uncontroversial MOS rules have a "chilling effect"? Wallnot (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Since bolded bullet points seem to the order of the day, might I also respond to this with a reminder that discussions on Wikipedia are WP:NOTAVOTE? The closer will assess the arguments made, not the numbers of those responding, and as far as I can tell the central tenet of the close that the MOS:CAPS "significant majority" bar for capitalising has not been reached, remains the only legitimate conclusion here. Perhaps the trend will change in the future and we can revisit, but for now the close was correct and should (as I said above) be endorsed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Really Amakuru you are telling a 16-year veteran about Wikipedia not being a democracy? Pretty shameful. I want this nonsense to end. A laughing stock it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Again Chaipau and Wallnot. May I request both to buzz off? Enough of this haranguing. Chaipau I don't need your support; Wallnot I don't need your dickering. The ball game is over. Neither of you has contributed any content to the IVC article. Let someone decide whichever way they want. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, I am not trying to help/support you, but echoing another editor's general comment to you on their talk page. I am also personally interested in the general course of this case. I have contributed to other Indus related articles marginally and I hope to contribute here in some form in the future. Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus defaulting to "not moved". Fundamentally this boils down to a group of copy editors relying on Ngram, which they see as providing definitive proof that trumps the expertise of subject matter experts. Ngram are fundamentally unreliable as a means of establishing capitalisation. A) they're vulnerable to manipulation [14],[15] (I can show others which are even more dramatic.) and B) they are vulnerable to contamination by false positives. I would go so far as to say that they should never be used in this regard. Ngram are no substitute for reviewing the literature and establishing the prevailing view. IMHO an absurdly high standard is being demanded by the proposers of these moves, they're acting as a lobby and trampling over topics where the number of editors with sufficient expertise is small, ignoring SME in their crusade. Copy editing should be about assisting content creators, it has become a monster stifling content creation and become an end in itself. The original close is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't represent the strength of argument and relied too heavily on the comments of editors basing their comment on a fundamentally flawed evidence base. I also note that the proposer of many of these moves was indeffed for disruptive page moves, perhaps it is time to re-examine that decision. I would add I think the editors concerned are well meaning but they are misguided in what they're doing and they have become disruptive. I would urge them to rethink before this ends up at arbcom or ANI and I do think the level of disruption over what should be a trivial matter is getting to the point of warranting such intervention. WCM_email 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse - the closure was reasonable. Red Slash 00:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer was not an administrator and this was a close call and contentious, therefore it is WP:BADNAC/2. It is also a supervote, the closer did not assess consensus of the discussion but instead went forward with their idiosyncratic viewpoint.PrisonerB (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse uninvolved (having not read any other MRV !votes yet). With apologies to the sentiments given by User:Fowler&fowler, particularly the perceived rudeness of a non-editor of the article coming in the change the most important content, the title, it is long standard practice and consensus, having withstood many challenges, that capitalisation of terms that could be proper names is only done where virtually all reliable sources capitalise the term. If there is at least a strong minority of reliable sources that do not capitalise the term, then Wikipedia falls on the side of not capitalising. As per Dicklyon and his evidence, a strong minority of reliable sources do not capitalise civilisation in “Indus Valley civilisation”. Virtually all reliable sources (though not all) do capitalise Valley. The closer succinctly and correctly closed the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Greg Han (closed)

Greg Han – Overturn to no consensus is the decision of this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Greg Han (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) No English-language reliable source using the new article name has been presented, and all English-language sources in the article use the name "Greg Hsu". Page was moved with one support, one opposition and one critical comment. Can't see any indication of consensus here. —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Endorse as closer. I've never heard of this guy, no idea who he is (before reading the article), but I saw a move request with a lot of back-and-forth about what sources say his English-language name is. Ultimately, nobody actually wrote oppose , and the proposer's arguments seemed logical enough, and it's part of our rules at WP:RM that an unopposed move should go forward. I think relisting is a reasonable outcome, but this move was ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooold when I came across it in WP:RMB. A request that is open for an entire month without anyone writing "oppose" - I mean, disagree with me if you want, but I hope you see why I moved it. Red Slash 20:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC) So your excuse for moving the article despite 100% of all known secondary sources supporting the other name is that I did not bold my oppose? —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Umm, yes. Also, you are very quick to discount the primary sources entirely, which is not what WP:PRIMARY says to do. Red Slash 23:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Overturn (not moved) Arguments for keeping the article at "Greg Hsu" are stronger. Comments don't have to say "Support" or "Oppose", closes should be based on the arguments not the count of the bolded words. PaleAqua (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Overturn (no consensus). Consensus was not reached for the move. WP:TITLECHANGES would apply. I also note that the current references 1,2,4 use Hsu, not Han. The closer supervoted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. WP:RMNOMIN applies only when "no one has objected". Kusma raised objections to the move (specifically that it wasn't supported by sources), and the closer should have considered those objections regardless of whether they were accompanied by a bolded !vote. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved). This shouldn't have been moved as there was no consensus. As others have said, the closure should be on the content as it's not a vote. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	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