Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 March

< 2015 February	Move review archives	2015 April >

2015 March edit

Communist state – endorse close – looks like everybody got the rationale – Favonian (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer of the article did not explain why closing the move was correct and the term communist state is entirely about Marxist-Leninist states. — TURTLOS (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - yes, the closer didn't give a rationale for the close, but in this case I don't think they needed to. The consensus was very clearly against the move. The oppose votes appealed to the WP:COMMONNAME policy, and that wasn't explicitly refuted. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was clearly against moving. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - There was clearly no consensus for the proposed move away from the WP:COMMONNAME, so no explanation was necessary. Originally this move was unanimously opposed, closing on 24 February. A week later, TURTLOS re-proposed an identical move, which was again strongly opposed. Now the user has brought this to MR. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept the consensus of the community. (Full disclosure: I opposed the second RM.) TDL (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coment The first move had nothing do to with it, I was originally against it. The point on not refuting WP:COMMONNAME is false, I refuted it i didnt specifically mention the WP:COMMONNAME but i did say why I believe the common name communist state in this was wrong in this case. In the Common name policy it says that ambiguous or innaccurate names are to be avoided, this page is a good example of this. But if you want to keep it this way purely on consensus i guess there is nothing i can do about that. TURTLOS (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow endorse close - Clear concensus against moving. While I prefer to see reasoning in closing statements this was a pretty clear close. Stating something is wrong does not prove it is wrong. Even if the title is "wrong" but the common name and where it is not a NPOV issue, the common name should be used and the article itself can explain the particulars. PaleAqua (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: Consensus was exceedingly clear in the most recent move request, as well as the one that preceded it last month. I'm not sure what else I can add that others haven't already. -- Calidum 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Donets Basin – endorsed. WP:COMMONNAME and a clear numerical majority after a full listing period? Absolutely no problem here. – BDD (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Insufficient time granted to a highly controversial name change. The move request came only a few months after a prior request had been declined for No Consensus, and with no different arguments put forward, it is inappropriate for the new closer to decide differently without any explanation. Indefensibly, a patently offensive vote was allowed to stand in the record. Matters of far less importance often go through several relistings and last for weeks and I fully expected this one to do so: I ask that admins Relist this discussion. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – No procedural errors. Last request was seven months ago, not a "few months" ago. RM ran for more than seven days. Closer has said on his talk page that the "offensive" (not sure that's the word I'd use, more like idiotic) comment played no part in his decision. The change only seems to have been controversial for Mr Strummer, so his bluster about "highly controversial name changes" should be taken with a grain of salt. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would endorse. But this is not a strictly procedural objection – it's an appeal to the spirit of Wikipedia policy and project goals. This is a unilateral academic change – please see my comments about other encyclopedias, textbooks, and the Library of Congress. Setting aside both our personal opinions for the moment, I am asking to relist this debate so that the wider community might utilize a responsible amount of time and debate to consider the influential impact this will have on world readership. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Move reviews are for determining whether there was a procedural problem with move discussion, not for rearguing the discussion. If there was no procedural problem, this move discussion will be endorsed. As there wasn't, it will do. The discussion is finished. It was conducted as specified by the policies and guidelines that govern the process. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does work that way. The policy for move review states that the move may be initiated if a) the closer did not "follow the spirit and intent" of move review, such as not addressing the need for a non-POV article title; and b) remaining "unaware of significant additional information." By the closer's own admission, the issue of politics played no part in his decision, and I submit that ignoring this aspect is the equivalent of remaining "unaware". The politics here are unavoidable: the Donets Basin region is the scene of a war between Russians and Ukrainians. This region lies between both nations, speaks both languages, and exists only as a geographical expression with no official status as a province or state. Deciding hastily to call this shared locale by its Russian name – against the example of authoritative references such as I've already listed – will insert the encyclopedia into an issue in which it does not belong. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue. Ukrainian-speakers and Russian-speakers call this place by the same name. I doubt you could even tell the difference if it were spoken. Once again, you show a lack of familiarity with the region itself, given that you fail to acknowledge that the Russian language is just as Ukrainian as the Ukrainian language. There is nothing "POV" about "Donbass". I don't know why you think Russian is not a Ukrainian language. Poroshenko speaks Russian, Tymoshenko didn't even speak or understand Ukrainian for most of her life. Most of Kiev (note, "Kiev" not "Kyiv") uses Russian as the language of daily interaction and commerce. It doesn't matter, though, because we're not deciding between Russian and Ukrainian names. We're deciding what is the most common name for the region in English, and that was demonstrated to be "Donbass". You've not listed any "authoritative references". You listed one Library of Congress book that allows both transliterations, and does not in any way suggest that "Donets Basin" should be preferred. Regardless, the discussion is finished. Move reviews are not for rearguing the move discussion. The closer did address that, by saying that WP:UCN and the other WP:AT criteria favoured "Donbass". That's within his right as a closer of a move discussion. You've no legs to stand on. Sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot close this request. Getting the last word is your style, but it doesn't make you an administrator. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to close it. It was closed before it was even opened, because it was malformed. I know, because I've been through this process myself before. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close The arguments for were stronger and the close is within admin discretion. For example WP:GOOGLEHITS is mostly about using google web search results to indicate notability, which is different than using Google Books to indicate common name ; if you follow the links to Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers it says "The best way to find actual reliable sources is not via a plain Google search, but with Google News, Books, and Scholar.". That said with the opposes I would have preferred to see a closer comment addressing the points raised. PaleAqua (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The nomination and support votes were all based guidelines; those opposing the move did nothing to refute that. -- Calidum 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If the voting is reasonably tight (I make it 5-3 in support in this case), the closer must give at least one sentence of explanation when doing the close. That's the habit I follow myself when closing, and I think everyone should do it and it should even be made a bit more formal. Yes, it's fine to just say "Moved" or "Not moved" if it's blindingly obvious from the conversation, but that does not apply here. Hence the "weak" part of my comment here. I would also urge the closer @EdJohnston: to please come here and comment at this review, again to clarify why the move took place. Having said all that, however, I have to endorse the close because it's the only way to read it. The nomination and supports were grounded in factual evidence about WP:COMMONNAME, while the opposes were along the lines of WP:NOTAGAIN and worries that we might offend someone with the title. Not really policy arguments. For the record, I voted "support" in this RM. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closer: Since Amakuru asked for more reasoning for my close, I've added a comment to the original RM. As he says, my decision was based on WP:COMMONNAME. The title Donbass doesn't contain any non-neutral language so far as I can tell. You can utter the word 'Donbass' without thereby recommending which state ought to govern the area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.