Waukesha parade attack – overturn and move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack. The discussion would have been a clear WP:SNOW close to this title, but was interrupted by the bold move to Waukesha parade attack. An immediate RM discussion can be opened on the talk page to discuss which name is better. For the purposes of future move discussions, Waukesha Christmas parade attack should be considered the most recent consensus title as of now. No further moves should be made by any editor (admins included) without a clear consensus to move from an RM request closed by an uninvolved editor. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WP:BIKESHED - whether to use “Christmas” in the page title hardly matters. Please focus efforts on article improvements rather than having endless debates about the article title. In time the best, natural title will become obvious. JehochmanTalk03:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When there seemed rough consensus for "car attack", you moved it to "car rampage", starting a new title debate. When there was unanimous opposition to "2021", you found it simpler and better to remove "Christmas", with similar results. Nobody's perfect and bygones are bygones, but when that time we agree on the best title comes, could you maybe let someone else finish the job? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the status quo ex-ante the admitted error and then relist. The page title before the wrongful close was "2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack" and the proposal was to -> "Waukesha Christmas parade attack". The wrongful close instead changed to "Waukesha parade attack". It would be improper to relist while the wrongfully closed title remains. Yes, we all err from time to time, let bygones be bygones, but could we please start from the correct square one. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack (uninvolved). This is a mess. The close as "moot" is clearly not a satisfactory summary of the discussion. It is regrettable that the closer was only given just over an hour to respond before opening this MR (during which time they have made no edits). I would hope that the closer would have agreed to reopen the discussion without the need to bring it here. The unilateral move by Jehochman should have been reverted as an uncontroversial technical request. Nevertheless, since we are here, I don't like moving the article back to a title which everyone agrees should be changed. The RM showed unanimous support for the proposed move, even though some editors also supported the alt move to Waukesha parade attack. Technical close the new RM. Trout Jehochman twice, for supervoting and for failing to close the RM. Trout ZZuuzz for the hopeless close. Trout Ribbet32 for opening this MR without allowing the closer time to respond. Havelock Jones (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack and open an RM to Waukesha parade attack (uninvolved). There is a clear consensus based on policy (WP:AT) to remove the year. The original title (ie with year) was not as concise and the degree of precision was unnecessary. While the removal of "Christmas" was raised, there was insufficient time to discuss the proposal even though it would be an equally strong outcome wrt policy for the same reasons. Essentially, this is backtracking but only as far as the fundamental point of disagreement. See also comment by Havelock Jones. An article like this is likely to bounce from title to title until the dust settles and the media sources settle for a consistent title unless there is some sort of moratorium on title changes until then. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amending: There appears to be a consensus forming to revert to Waukesha Christmas parade attack and then provide full move protection for a period of time. This is only slightly different from where I was originally at. I can see the benefit to not sanctioning yet another move/move discussion at this time. The lack of stability in the title is worse than I percieved. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't mind the trout. I closed the move discussion, although I consider the discussion to have already been closed by the move. We had a move that wouldn't be easily reverted (per the particular history of the page) and a discussion where people would be voting for a proposal which is no longer applicable. The discussion was moot. If someone has a better idea than closing it and starting a new one, they're welcome to go ahead with it. -- zzuuzz(talk)09:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] To my mind, the significant issue is the out-of-process move (per above). The close compounds this because it "appears" to give legitimacy to the move, even if that was not what you intended. Regardless, it complicates any resolution. Perhaps a minnow and a glass of white to accompany it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the best closing summary I've ever achieved, so I'll accept your minnow meal. However saying there was consensus to move, or not to move, or to move to the new title, or not, or that it was worthwhile continuing the proposal in its current form, would all have been overstating it. The move was a de facto fait accompli - indeed out of process and less than desirable, but I would suggest not wholly illegitimate, and nothing that can't be progressed more cleanly with a fresh start. Omnomnom. -- zzuuzz(talk)12:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me afterwards that "procedural close" are the words I was looking in the closing statement. If I had used those words we may not be on this page today. I don't particularly feel like amending the existing close, unless I see pitchforks, but let the record show that this is what it was. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is on me not you. There’s an ongoing discussion about whether to add Christmas and how to capitalize parade. Go help that discussion instead of starting a parallel discussion here. Don’t go back to ante because nobody advocates for including 2021. That would be a mistake. JehochmanTalk11:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus for removing 2021. The mover decided there was also consensus for removing "Christmas", which was (as zzuuzz puts it) a "de facto fait accompli". Presumably the mover wanted to shortcut another requested move discussion so that energy can be expended on other matters (like expanding the article). I'm sure the shortcut was well-intentioned but I don't think, in this context, it was appropriate. Suggest moving to Waukesha Christmas parade attack without prejudice against someone starting an RM to Waukesha parade attack. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. There is an ongoing RM discussion to add "Christmas" and to decide whether "Parade" needs to be capitalized if "Waukesha Christmas Parade" is a proper name. I strongly recommend letting that play out instead of reversing and throwing it all up in the air again. JehochmanTalk12:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So, a mess is created. The editor who created the mess admits error. And then the editor recommends [here] and [here] that we should all just ignore this here discussion and carry on, as if this discussion had never taken place. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The words on this page represent a duplication of effort. There's a discussion ongoing at the article talk page that will resolve the question of whether to include "Christmas". We already decided to replace "crash" with "attack" and decided to remove "2021." In my view, this is not a mess, but steady progress toward finding the right title. There are several issues wrapped together and it helps to address them one by one. JehochmanTalk15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse there was clear consensus to remove "2021". It's less clear (or more accurately, not clear at all) about removing "Christmas", but there's already a non-RM move discussion on the talk page to revert that. It would be procedurally correct to use the interim title of Waukesha Christmas parade attack but at this point I think another move before a preliminary assessment of consensus in the new discussion would simply confuse things. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if consensus is delayed or not reached? (involved, but not passionate); there is the real possibility that consensus will not be reached or may linger and that would result in "Waukesha parade attack" remaining as the defacto title even though it is widely agreed here that it is not the consensus decision. Procedurally, shouldn't the title be reset to "Waukesha Christmas Parade attack" until a consensus is reached to change it - especially if a consensus decision is not imminent? If not, what will happen if consensus is not reached (not rhetorical question)? Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus then either version is equally fine. Almost nothing is at stake here. People are over-investing their time in this issue. JehochmanTalk20:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now. <uninvolved – previous closer> When we look into the number of page moves and RMs for this title issue, it becomes clear that editors should step back and let the dust settle before tackling the title issue again. The closer, zzuuzz, is an admin who looked at the situation where another admin, Jehochman, had moved the article to a title that was different from the title that was requested to move, which malformed the request. We cannot expect admins to wheel war over page titles, and that is what I believe the closer was avoiding with a "moot" procedural close. Suggest this MRV be procedurally closed and a one-month moratorium against both article page moves and talk-page move requests be set in place with full-move-protection of the article remaining in place to enforce. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there20:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: It already is full move protected, and has been for a while. Admins have moved it during open RMs at least three times, twice through full move protection I think, which is why there has been so much discussion about the title. Admins moving the page during open RMs is what is causing the problem; full protection is useless. 😂 Levivich20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, because Jehochman moved it through full protection in the middle of an RM twice, even after their first move was reversed by other admins and roundly criticized. I don't like telling everyone to stop discussing it for a month because one admin can't stop pressing the buttons during RMs. I like endorsing that admin's actions and freezing their chosen title for a month even less. Levivich20:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please rethink your opinion. , because the admin performed the most recent rename while the article was not fully protected, as shown below. You said yourself that you support the title it's at now, so let's just endorse it, freeze it for a month and move on. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, reverse the move, reopen the RM - if I had moved the page twice through move protection during open RMs, my page mover perm would have been pulled by now. This is a no-brainer. And I support the title it's at now, but that doesn't mean this out of process move should remain, it's not fair to other editors. It'd be nice if we actually had at least one full RM during which no admins moved the page. Just asking for one here. :-P Levivich20:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The history shows that the last time the page was moved was on the 27th of November (yes, by an admin); however, the full protection wasn't put in place until yesterday, the 28th. There is no reason I can see to let this farce continue. Overturn, reverse, and especially to reopen this RM would just continue the farce. It was procedurally closed, the title is acceptable even to you, and so there is no reason to drag it on and on and on. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there21:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that the out-of-process move was done by an admin through full-protection, and that that admin is now saying crap like Please focus efforts on article improvements rather than having endless debates about the article title and People are over-investing their time in this issue. in response to their blatant supervote. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The initial full-protection expired at 14:09, 27 November 2021. Jehochman did the move at 20:56, 27 November 2021. He is still being cranky, but he's entitled to be given the volume of mess and the lack of use of admin-tools. Someone should make this discussion go away. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bringing it to MRV has just opened the mess up to a new set of editors. We are all getting involved in the mass frustration. Let's just please make this go away both here and on the talk page for at least a month. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the need to clear up the confusion. I had previously done some temporary protections on the article, but indefinite full move protection was implemented by another admin on the 24th. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my world! We agree that this is a mess, that this discussion is just sucking in more editors to a pointless WP:BIKESHED dispute, and that the logs are hard to understand. Moreover, Black Kite, who placed the move protection, said the move was "fine."[1]. Please, let's all just move on and never speak of this again! JehochmanTalk22:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, are you advocating to go back to the last consensus title, "Waukesha Christmas Parade attack" and locking it all down for a few weeks to cool? Or are you suggesting going forward with the title that is at the center of the controversy and has resulted in some super-vote allegations against you? There former would show strong leadership and probably dial this all down. It is the standing consensus. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think dropping 2021 was non-controversial. If I could have avoided being being stabbed for doing it, I would have already moved the article back to "Waukesha Christmas Parade attack." Dropping Christmas (though not opposed at the time) has since registered material opposition. I might capitalize "Parade" because editors have pointed out that it's a proper name, "Waukesha Christmas Parade." That argument seems like it carries weight. From where we are now, it may be an option to have an admin go close the RM discussion that's presently open, thereby ending two long discussions with one action. JehochmanTalk01:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "[blatant]" [supervote] is [alleged] to have been exercised, which provides a certain given result. Admission of error is immediately forthcoming by the closer. The closer then repeatedly argues that the result which was reached via the supervote shouldn't be reversed, or, oh my!, it's too late anyway! If a certain result was achieved, and the result is now made to endure, oh, well, it's all just mere happenstance. XavierItzm (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, planting the bean under an adjacent voter's nose kind of makes me the villain in this true story, but how was I supposed to know it could grow into something so big as to tickle a powerful giant overseer's sole jurisdiction? If anybody has to go back in time to fix this, I highly suggest also writing a cautionary essay here and a beloved fable there, so nobody has to innocently and ignorantly go through the Happenstance again! I rest my case, good tidings to all. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close this and the discussion on the talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time on the nuances of a title that don't really matter in the great scheme of things, on an article that is rapidly disappearing from news stories anyway. (Phew) Black Kite (talk)11:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title was important enough for you to move twice through full protection, only when your move is challenged do you suddenly argue that it's not important. Stop bludgeoning this discussion. No more comments here from you, please. Levivich13:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a strawman argument, and if you don't want me to respond, then don't cast aspersions at me. I said that whether or not to include "Christmas" is unimportant. Would somebody please close this thread already. I don't care which way, but please end it. JehochmanTalk 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) You are welcome to revert my move, in part, by restoring "Christmas" (to be absolutely clear). JehochmanTalk16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who keeps claiming they don't care, you're sure acting like you care an extreme lot. You created this mess; perhaps instead of blaming others, it's time to own it and voluntarily withdraw from the conversation? Ribbet32 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: Can you clarify if You are welcome to revert my move, in part, by restoring "Christmas" (to be absolutely clear) is a general statement which is true for any MR, or if you're explicitly saying you consent to anyone here doing that action? Because if you're saying you're fine with anyone reversing that, you (or I, or anyone else) could just reverse the disputed part of your move, close this discussion, close the pseudo-RM on talk, and I suspect that'd be the most elegant solution to clean up this mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True for anyone, but the article is currently under indefinite full move protection. I request an uninvolved administrator to decide if that would be appropriate. JehochmanTalk17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't exactly the same achieved by closing this MR as overturned to move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack, with a note that Jehochman agrees to his move being partly reverted? It seems that a theoretically admirable desire to avoid bureaucracy has just been generating additional processes, and I see no reason why this discussion should not be regularly closed, so that it is clear that there is a consensus outcome with a clear rationale. I think that way there's a reasonable chance that everyone will move on. @Paine Ellsworth, Levivich, and 力:can we agree to this? (Also ping Ribbet32 & XavierItzm.) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, I don't know. To me, it doesn't seem that anybody is ready to "move on" from this frustrating title issue yet. So I stick to my endorsement of this closure, because that is why we are here: to decide whether or not the close was reasonable. I say it was reasonable because the closer, zzuuzz, is an admin who looked at the situation where another admin, Jehochman, had moved the article to a title that was different from the title that was requested to move, which malformed the request. We cannot expect admins to wheel war over page titles, and that is what I believe the closer was avoiding with a "moot" procedural close. This closure should be endorsed, the page should remain at full-move-protection and a one-month moratorium should be set in place. Then imho there is a reasonable chance that some or most editors will move on. (or at the very least they can come back in a month with cooler heads and better decide if "Christmas" is really needed in the title, and if "parade" is or is not part of a proper-name phrase.) P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there10:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell anyone I said it, but I'm not entirely sure that whether we capitalise the "s" in New York City Subway matters in the great scheme of things, and yet...Havelock Jones (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This move review should be allowed to continue for the standard one week time frame. Any decisions made should be done after a discussion that is properly announced via a formal channel. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noting that this is the second time that User:Jehochman moved this page in the middle of an RM to a title that appears to not be supported by consensus, I would suggest that even if we conclude nothing else here, we conclude that Jehochman should not move pages during an ongoing RM.
Comment - Noting that the last Talk page consensus (26 November 2021) title was "Waukesha Christmas parade attack". To date there is no Talk page consensus (6 or 7 for, 5 oppose) for a change to "Waukesha parade attack", the current title in place. The discussion on the MR page and counting only uninvolved editors (editors not already included in the Talk page count) is 6 overturn (go back to the consensus title) and 2 endorse (leave things as they are). For informational purposes only. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as uninvolved. The current name is good enough, and constant arguing over minor specifics isn't helping anything. Eventually a specific name for the event might overtake others in the press, at which point a new proposal would be appropriate for moving the article. Until then, it's too WP:RECENT to have this much argument over the page title. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the title chosen by consensus, which included "Christmas". Trout the admin that decided to just willy-nilly overrule a process. (Uninvolved) RedSlash22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have documented that three editors asked to remove "Christmas," and none opposed, as of the time of my action. Moreover, the current name is the one most compliant with WP:TITLE. Judging consensus is not merely a vote count. Votes that are cognizant of policy carry more weight than votes that ignore policy. You are welcome to disagree, but I request that you stop casting aspersions at me, as you have done throughout this discussion. JehochmanTalk15:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. The person filing this request did not post to my talk page even once about this[2] (showing last edit to my talk page in 2017), as required by Wikipedia:Move_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_review_request step 1. No attempt was made to discuss the closure with me by the filing party. Had they done so, a lot of wasted time and bad will could have been avoided. Now that we have been through this long discussion and I have read all the comments here and on the article talk page, I am convinced that my closure was correct. I am striking my concilliatory comments above because after all this effort has been invested, we should now have a proper decision. Policy must be considered when closing a discussion. We do not merely count votes. We also weigh votes against policy. WP:TITLE states five characteristics that we consider when there is more than one title used in reliable sources (as is the case here). We do not simply use the most prevalent title. Instead, we consider the five characteristics. In this case, the two most relevant are Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects, and Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. No bona fide argument has been made that "Waukesha parade attack" could be confused with any other article, so this title is precise. Furthermore, it would be impossible to argue that "Waukesha Christmas parade attack" is more concise. What we have here is griping by editors that does not cite a basis in the WP:TITLE (added 16:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)) policy. Instead, it appears to be political lobbying of motivated by the unspoken argument, "They're trying to cancel Christmas." We should not countenance further misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground.The article talk page has been the target of a lot of noisy comments, many of which had to be reverted. In this venue it can be difficult to conduct a rational discussion. (added 16:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)) Wikipedia does not care about the US culture wars, and does not want to be involved. JehochmanTalk13:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of a move request is to see the title that the community considers the best reflection of Wikipedia title policy and practice, not the title that you consider best. This is 100% a WP:SUPERVOTE. You felt like the arguments being made were wrong, and instead of contributing to the discussion, you ended it and put it where you thought was best, completely disregarding the editors below you and their discussion. This simply cannot be allowed to stand. RedSlash15:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The community gets to develop consensus, but votes based on logic, facts, and policy carry more weight than votes that are merely based on personal preferences. That's why we always ask editors to explain why they vote, and why we don't just count votes. Please be careful with WP:SUPERVOTE, because it is not breached here. If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. First, the person starting this discussion never attempted to discuss the close with me. They went to Zzuuzz, who had merely hatted the conversation, and then came here and posted. I now understand how this confusion escalated. (added 13:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)) Had somebody asked me at the time to restore "Christmas" and let that question be discussed further, I would have done so. I try to be agreeable when people communicate with me. Second, I explained just above how my closure was based on WP:CONSENSUS, not my personal preference. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. (Note for transparency: I just made a clarifying edit to WP:SUPERVOTE in hopes of mitigating future problems.[3]) JehochmanTalk17:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were duly informed prior to the post here. Your response could be uncharitably called "rude" or charitably called "curt", but the notice was sufficient. The MRV is well within our normal bounds of order. I appreciate the transparency, however. RedSlash18:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's finally clear how this confused situation evolved. I will keep this in mind and try to prevent it from happening in the future. I still recommend leaving the title where it is, but without prejudice to having a further discussion about changing the title. One editor wants to replace "attack" with "rampage" and some editors want to restore "Christmas." All of that should be discussed on the merits, rather than punting the title around on wonkish procedural grounds. JehochmanTalk13:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason procedure is important. Ultimately, in your goal to save editor time by skipping some steps, we've ended up spending even more editor time. The fastest resolution to this situation would've been to move this back, let someone start an RM to scrap Christmas, and the debate would've happened (perhaps even quickly if there were little dispute) and the issue would be resolved. Right now we have a shaky original move, a long messy DRV where some editors are commenting overturn on procedural grounds and others endorsing for underlying content merits, and a pseudo-RM on the talk page to move to Christmas or not (whose result will be meaningless, because it's not a proper RM). The situation is a complete mess that would've been avoidable if proper procedures were followed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We serve our readership by having good articles. We have good articles when editors create and upkeep them. Editors are motivated to do so when they feel empowered. Editors feel empowered when their consensus is respected by administrators, instead of perfunctorily overruled just because someone has the power to do it + thinks they don't need to respect the consensus developed. Wikipedia will be a lot worse off in the long run if editors are convinced there's no point working on improving articles, since admins get to overrule them whenever they feel like it. RedSlash00:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Had somebody asked me at the time to restore "Christmas" and let that question be discussed further, I would have done so. I asked you to do that on Nov 28. You did not do so. This RM was opened the next day. Levivich15:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Levivich, you have misinterpreted the record. You said, {{tquote|Will you self-revert your move...} which would have meant restoring "2021" to the title, which was clearly opposed by all, and remains undisputed. I would not have done that because it would have clearly been wrong. Had you civilly requested something like, "I see that there was a consensus to remove 2021, but the issue of "Christmas" would benefit from a separate discussion. Could you restore "Christmas"?" I would have done so. JehochmanTalk19:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, it's my fault for not requesting the right thing. And the OP's fault for not talking to you before filing this MR. And everyone else's fault for wasting time on this MR instead of discussing the title at the article talk page. It's not just the fault of the guy who twice moved the page to a title without consensus through full protection in the middle of an RM, everyone else did something wrong, too. Thanks for clearing that up. Levivich20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack (uninvolved). It's extremely clear from the discussion that the consensus was to eliminate the year and move to Waukesha Christmas parade attack and that move would not have obviously violated any policy or guideline. The article should not have been moved against that consensus, especially without closing the discussion with an explanation, and the discussion should not have been closed as "moot" without a similar justification for the move. Making this right doesn't preclude anyone from opening a new RM suggesting an even better title. Station1 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I actually prefer the present name per WP:CONCISE, but pages should not be moved right in the middle of RM discussions. Fait accompli doesn't work here. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR/NOTBURO and WP:BIKESHED, in the spirit that this clearly just needs to be brought to an end, and ending it here instead of encouraging further bureaucracy is an improvement. There was a consensus to remove the year, and I see nothing in policy or practically that prevents a bold move to an even better form of the title (per WP:CONCISE, among other reasons). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in policy or practically that prevents a bold move to an even better form of the title It's WP:RMUM: Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: ... There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title ... It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. Of course people shouldn't make bold moves while an RM is running, and through full protection at that, and they shouldn't do it twice. This is about as far away from an uncontroversial move (the only kind that can be done boldly) as you can get. Levivich16:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the RM was to remove the year (a conclusion which nobody objects to, either, and which the move is not contrary to), and moving to a title which was not considered by the participants but which better reflects policy is not a sudden reason to enforce needless bureaucracy. Again, this just needs to end, and if it's already at the most appropriate title, there's no point in wasting further editor time on the proverbial bikeshed when there's surely more fundamental issues to resolve here and elsewhere RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in the RM; it was never closed. This page has never had a closed RM: all RMs were interrupted by bold page moves (twice by the same editor, through full protection, which was put in place specifically to stop bold page moves and force an RM). What wastes editor time is the interrupting of the RMs; having an RM is not a waste of editor time. No matter what happens, anyone wanting to change the title is going to have to start a new RM anyway. Endorsing this is not going to stop a new RM from being started if that's what someone wants to do; neither will overturning this. "This needs to end" is, IMO, a nonsense reason. What is the "this" that is going on that "needs to end", and how does endorsing the very obviously against-policy move help end "this"? What we have here is an example where there has been disruption, and then people complain about the disruption, and you're saying the complaining about disruption needs to end because it's more disruptive than the disruption itself... that's nonsense logic. You're only saying that because you agree with the page title--I do, too, but that's no reason to disenfranchise our colleague who may not agree with the title, and who should have the opportunity to participate in an RM without someone with special privileges ignoring or overruling them. WP:NOTBURO doesn't mean "the guy with the technical privileges gets to decide for everyone else". Levivich17:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of closure does not mean lack of consensus (many discussions in fact reach consensus without ever needing formal closure). If you absolutely insist, then vacate close, re-close as "consensus to remove year from title", let subsequent move stand. If anybody feels that the new title is ostensibly wrong, they should come forward now with reasons which are more than entirely procedural, or, as they say, hold their peace about it. We don't usually hold decisions back because of hypothetical opposition, which has managed to somehow not manifest itself in two weeks (the only objections are entirely on process and not outcome), and yes, the walls of text complaining (about how this supposedly needs even more bureaucracy - a statement which is almost always just plain wrong) is more disruptive than the thing being complained about. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody feels that the new title is ostensibly wrong, they should come forward now... That's really unfair... read the talk page! The opposition is most certainly real and not hypothetical. There are people arguing for the inclusion of "Christmas", with policy-based and source-based reasons, even in the RM that was interrupted. If nobody wanted "Christmas" we wouldn't be having this discussion! The whole point is that the move interrupted an RM where this was being discussed. You're acting as if there is consensus for this title when the whole point is that there is not consensus because the move interrupted the consensus process. It's WP:Fait accompli editing. Levivich17:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - this is the second time that one admin circumvented a move request to move to a title that literally nobody suggested. An admin utilizing administrative tools, and moving through move protection is that, multiple times to enforce their preferred view, whether in the title, in content, whatever, is unacceptable, and I say that as somebody who does not care at all what this article is titled. The look over there because there are more important things argument is cute, but also nonsense. If you dont think it is important to include Christmas in the title or not then you shouldnt object to including it. Trying to force through a view through the use of admin tools is not one of the acceptable options however. nableezy - 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf anybody feels that the new title is ostensibly wrong, they should come forward now with reasons which are more than entirely procedural, or, as they say, hold their peace about it.... Respectfully, eighteen (18) days in is a little late to change the objective of this review. It's time to close this and move on to other things. Everything that can be said has been said. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. This is the move review that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends, some people started debating it not knowing what it was, and they'll keep on debating it forever just because... Ribbet32 (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this the wrong way, but <<< grin >>> (wide grin). It's true that some debates just seem to go on and on, all "neverending stories". However, I've seen that no matter how long topics can be carried on, discussions are always eventually closed, either formally or by editors no longer attending to the issue. Always. And this MRV discussion will at some point be closed just like all the rest before it. Happy holidays to you and yours, and to all editors who read this!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there20:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin closer pretty much admits to not understanding the issues involved in this highly contentious discussion. His closing statement includes "I must say I found the strength of feeling related to what is facially a very minor change here somewhat surprising", indicating a lack of familiarity with arguments that happen now and then between those who would prefer to stick close to guidelines as written and those who reach pretty far to claim that something is a proper name. His statement "Both numerically, and in terms of the arguments made, there is at least no consensus to move here, and I would say a clear consensus against moving" hallucinates a clear consensus. His statement "Against this was set page-stability, a different interpretation of the WP:COMMONNAME, page-scope, disambiguation, WP:PRECISE, and on balance these arguments appeared stronger, particularly the argument that this change involves a change in page-scope for which there was no consensus shown here" seems very hard to interpret, as no change in page scope was proposed; it is clear that "New York City Subway" and "New York City subway" refer to the same subway system, as least when used by the operator "New York City Transit Authority"; nobody demonstrated any different referent in sources between these two. And there's no interpretation of COMMONNAME by which this term that's usually lowercase in sources should be capped in WP. And I don't think anyone rained a disambiguation for WP:PRECISE issue. Closer seems to have read a lot in here that wasn't there; sounds like more of a super-vote. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and trout the nom for bringing this here. No close was going to result in a move, as evidenced by the linked discussion with the closer. Relisting was pointless, this has been explained. Most of the above statement is a merely an attempt to re-litigate the dispute by repeating arguments already made in the move discussion which is not what this board is for. The other point raised about WP:PRECISE is flatly incorrect since SuperSkaterDude45 explicitly mentioned it. The Non-admin closer point is particularly silly since WP:RMNAC is clear that "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure ... any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate" (emphasis added) and this was actually quoted to you in the talk page discussion which you apparently decided not to read. IIRC move reviews that begin with points like this was a nac are often SNOW endorsed. Please consider withdrawing this to save everyone some time. I'll repeat my plea from earlier, we are here to build an encyclopedia not play a procedural game, stuff like this is not at all productive. Unfortunately my IP is still hopping uncontrollably all over eastern europe, I'll try to get that fixed eventually; obviously I'm not new; tamzin can confirm if needed. Regards, 79.126.122.14 (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move (uninvolved). In the discussion, I see many of those opposed to the move insisting we must capitalize the word "subway" per WP:NCCAP because it is a proper. However, this argument fails to account for MOS:CAPS, which states "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" (emphasis in the original). Reliable sources, as presented in the discussion and confirmed by a Google search, do not capitalize "subway" in this instance. Calidum05:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an analysis of the closure itself, that is essentially a !vote for the RM which has already closed. Per WP:MRV#Commenting in a move review, 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). Therefore, your comment about the substance of the RM itself is irrelevant to this MRV. (Furthermore, it is wrong; reliable sources do capitalize "subway" as necessary, as the opponents have repeatedly pointed out. But that is irrelevant since, again, 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.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an analysis of the two main arguments in the move request and an explanation of why one of them should have been discounted by the closer. Please don't accuse me of rehashing arguments in a move request I was not involved in in the first place. So far, I'm the only one who was uninvolved who commented here, yourself included. Calidum14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you, I'm stating a direct fact, Citing WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPSis providing evidence to defend a specific title choice. It's not a neutral analysis because you're actually bolding the word "move", which entails minimizing the evidence brought up by the other set of commenters. To be fair, I'm not objecting to your overturn !vote, just the fact that you're also recommending that the page be moved. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears we're re-litigating the RM here, I'll give two arguments. First, it's not at all true that we always follow usage - note Lookin' out My Back Door where basically everybody else capitalizes "Out". Second, the argument for a move suggests that usage such as "the New York City subway system" is evidence in favor of a move, while the printed maps that say "New York City Subway" are not evidence against a move; many participants at the RM disagree. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, the nom is not asking for any specific remedy here: they merely object to this being a NAC close.
As a full explanation of the close -
The !votes were weighed significantly in favour of moving. There were 6 oppose !votes versus 13 move !votes. This is a 68%-32% split. There was also a further !vote that was pitched as a conditional support and conditional oppose, and given that the conditions of their support were not obviously met, might also be read as an oppose !vote. The numerical split is not everything, but it should count for something.
The oppose !votes had marginally the stronger argument. Different interpretations of what WP:NNCAPS, WP:COMMONNAME, and various other policies required were proffered by both sides but the argument that the rename also implied a refactoring of the article since it potentially brought into scope different systems operating in New York that were not part of the official subway system was particularly persuasive.
Given the above there was just no way that this was ever going to be closed as move. People proposing an overturn to move here are not assessing the consensus that was actually on the page but instead trying to make this discussion into a second RM discussion.
Changes in capitalisation *should* be low-stakes and should not result in the kind of bad-tempered discussion seen at the RM, on my talk page, and here. We should not expect them to be controversial as a matter of course. We have already made world-wide headlines as a community with the Into Darkness farago. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm involved by there is no way that this could be closed as anything other than "not moved" or "no consensus to move", the only reason this matters is that the nominator wants to nominate it again (see the background section of the RM) and would prefer a no consensus closure as that means they wont have to wait as long before doing so. In my (involved) opinion, the closing summary is a good and accurate reflection of the discussion that supports FOARP's conclusions and offers no basis on which to overturn the discussion. The nominator needs to stop wasting the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move (involved). Firstly, it is not specifically that this is a NAC but that the closer appears to be insufficiently experienced. The close broadly lists some of the issues and reaches a conclusion but critically, it fails to show how points of the discussion and issues have been weighed to reach a conclusion that on balance these arguments [against] appeared stronger. Such a failure creates the appearence of a supervote. Per WP:NOTVOTE, strength of argument is very important. A strong argument relies on established relevant criteria (usually policy and guideline) and evidence. It is not sufficient to invoke particular policies and guidelines, their relevance must be established - that they actually weigh on the matter being considered and how they do so. This will almost always require evidence to be established, in order to distinguish assertions that are based on conjecture and have little to no weight. Very few of the comments offered have any strength eg:Clear violations of WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME, The system has name that is a proper noun or "New York City Subway" is an entire proper noun. The matter of WP:COMMONNAME is determined by evidence and is totally consistent with WP:NCCAPS. Reading WP:PRECISE more fully and in context, it would not be relevant unless there were an actual need to disambiguate it from another article that differed only in the casing of "subway". As the nom states: And I don't think anyone rained a disambiguation for WP:PRECISE issue. [emphasis added] To assertions that the name is a proper name, these are nothing more than unsubstantiated assertion. The guideline to establish such an assertion is MOS:CAPS and this relies on evidence in sources. If anything, the discussion establishes (a consensus) that English defies codification. As to "scope" arguments, such a distinction will not be clear to a reader unfamiliar with the subject and the scope of the article is established by the lead. Ultimately, this goes back to whether there is an actual "need" for disambiguation. Ultimately, any arguments of potential strength come back to the evidence upon which they rely. Herein lies the failing of the close. Opponents would state: the majority of the arguments [are based on] ... the broad spectrum of reliable sources that use the term in a relevant manner ... However, I see no such evidence. Even when asked for, it was not identified. It is an unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable) statement. On the other hand, the nom provided a range of evidence that was variously "attacked": that it did not sufficiently discriminate different usages, was not sufficiently reliable (WP:RS) or was anachronistic. It is up to the closer to determine the strength of the evidence in the face of such criticisms. They have not. However, the ultimate evidence lies in the corpus of the sources cited in the article itself. A survey of same was presented. It does not support a premise to capitalise. It has not been disputed.
The closer has failed to narrow the arguments by relevance wrt to policy and guideline and has then failed to weigh the strength of evidence (or if such has existed). There are sufficient grounds to overturn the move. On the basis of policy and guideline, and the strength of evidence, it is sufficient to conclude for a move. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move or at bare minimum overturn to "no consensus" and perhaps relist. This closer got everything wrong, or at least sided against guidelines pretty consistently, prefering the heat-not-light of venty and WP:SSF-laden arguments, when this boils down to a dirt-simple matter: if sources are not remarkably consistent in capitalizing, then WP does not capitalize. There is nothing magically special about this case. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The majority of the "overturn and move" !voters here were also in support of the move. However, both numerically and based on policy, there was significant opposition to the move. There is not consensus against moving the article, so it should be closed as "no consensus to move" or "consensus not to move". Though I was an !oppose voter in this RM, I'm endorsing this not based on my own opinions or on arguments made during the RM, as some commenters above seem to be doing, but based on actual outcomes. As with Thryduulf above, I think FOARP made the right decision in his summary of the discussion. I don't understand what remedy Dicklyon seeks that would be better served by having an admin close the discussion, but I will say that it appears to be a dubious attempt to have a discussion re-run until his desired outcome is obtained.I will note that one of the "overturn" commenters above, Calidum, did not even vote while the RM was in progress for over a month. Unfortunately, that is not how a move review works. A move review isn't to relitigate an RM, it is to determine whether a closure is valid and, based on the evidence, this would have been the most likely outcome even if an admin had closed it. Note that the "overturn" commenters above are also in possible violation of WP:MRV#Commenting in a move review, particularly the point that 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. Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love how my uninvolvement is somehow a negative when in fact I'm the only one so far to come at this with an unbiased opinion. Above you accuse me of rehashing this debate, which seems kind of hard to do when I was not involved. Calidum14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think their point here is that your !vote here was (in their view) essentially an RM !vote made too late, rather than (in their view) an analysis of the close. Obviously there is always some over-lap between the two of course. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. I'm just objecting to what appears to be a !vote in favor of moving, rather than a !vote in favor of overturning, but I agree there may be some overlap. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I did not participate in the move discussion, but upon reviewing it, I find the close appropriate. This is being relitigated because a user is unhappy their preferred outcome did not happen, not because of any real issues with the close itself. This has dragged on for a month now, and editors continue to litigate it without cause ("the closer wasn't an admin" is not a valid cause). This move review is exactly the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that is Wikipedia at its worst. And the repeated attacks against the competence of the closer by the nom here are inappropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, evidently sane closure. Whether the word "subway" here is part of a proper name is a matter that reasonable people can reasonably disagree about, and there was no reason for the closer to overturn the clear majority opinion expressed by participants on this matter of linguistic interpretation. For a closure to find a "consensus" contrary to such a strong majority, the minority side would have had to be based on an extremely clear, extremely compelling policy argument. This wasn't the case here, because to serve as such a compelling argument, the principle invoked by them would first have to be one thing: an important principle. WP:MOSCAPS isn't that. Style prescriptions of the MOS aren't laws, and they are never really important enough to justify overruling a strong local consensus. That's all the more the case for a MOS prescription with such a tenuous claim to global consensus as this one has (as has been documented time and again in other move debates). The whole issue here is the misperception of some of the supporters that their MOS-crusade agenda is somehow important; it needs to be firmly impressed on them that it is not. Fut.Perf.☼19:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(involved)Endorse. I do not find it surprising that the arguments for overturning are almost all The Usual Suspects; less still that this is not mentioned on the article talk page. Could that possibly be correct? Qwirkle (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to an explicit "No consensus". The close should state "No consensus", as a summary of the discussion, not "NOT MOVED", which is a statement of fact of the consequence of the close. It was "no consensus" because two sides, boith with "strong" sentiments, were talking passed each other.
I don't think that the strength of feeling related to what is facially a very minor change is surprising. "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake" is a decades old observation that is widely and continuingly observed. It applies to Wikipedia titling, and the Wikipedia Manual of Style (is that a proper name?), and this question was a single character case change at the intersection of both.
Also, the topic is in New York. New York is a world-leading, ground-breaking place, in the real world, and on Wikipedia. See Talk:New York (state)/Proposed move for an example of a satisfactory consensus decision process on a highly contentious issue. The RM was not for the backwater Springfield Subway. This RM was a focal point proxy battle for recognition of the internal consensus of the MOS aficionados.
Dicklyon made an excellent nomination, and FOARP made a good-enough close. The "NAC-ers are not experienced enough" issues requires User:FOARP to bluelink this. My advice: Prepare for the next RM. Do it as an RfC on a dedicated subpage, to not disrupt any article talk page. Make an even better rational that summarises the past arguments. Wait at least six months from the close of this MRV.
Overturn to no consensus (if it would make anyone happier). I had seen the discussion, considered closing it, but I did not fancy the prospect of pitchforks being pointed at me, like they are now at FOARP; at very least, I would commend him for taking the stand to close that. I will echo his statement that Changes in capitalisation *should* be low-stakes and should not result in the kind of bad-tempered discussion seen at the RM. On to the substance, the arguments for move were much better policy-grounded in my opinion, but apparently failed to convince the majority. I'm not sure I'd agree with Future Perfect that Style prescriptions of the MOS aren't laws, and they are never really important enough to justify overruling a strong local consensus. but then again, it is a matter that reasonable people can reasonably disagree about. No such user (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). WP:MINNOW the closer for introducing unnecessary ambiguity by saying "there is at least no consensus". Per WP:3OUTCOMES: "There are generally three different outcomes for requested moves. The closer should clearly show which outcome has taken place." Nevertheless, the closer goes on to find "a clear consensus against moving" and he has ample grounds for that finding. The large majority of editors opposed for reasons sounding in policy, which the closer has adequately summarised. The existence of a small group of unpersuaded editors does not contradict a consensus, even when they produce a lot of text.
The suggestion made above that WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS shows a clear policy requirement to move is wrong. If that argument were convincing, it would have convinced the majority in the RM, which it did not. I agree also with Future Perfect at Sunrise here.
In deference to the lengthy arguments in the RM, it might have been better if the closing statement had touched on the question of whether New York City Subway is a proper name, but the majority considered that it was. While I appreciate that Dicklyon considered the evidence to be decisive on this point, it failed to persuade the majority, and there is nothing paradoxical about saying that there is a New York City subway called New York City Subway. Havelock Jones (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per SmokeyJoe with a caveat that RMs that don't produce consensus and could be closed as an explicit "no consensus" are customarily closed as not moved. There was no consensus and the RM result we expect to see from that is "not moved". Not very granular admittedly, but that's how it is. This pattern most definitely needs to change (deletion discussions have this granularity and it's beneficial), but this individual MR can't do it, because Wikipedia isn't based on precedent. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis: Actually, it is customary – see WP:THREEOUTCOMES guidance at RMCI. It is not strictly observed (the clumsy recommended wording "Consensus to not move" is seldom used, and it is not well-parsed by AAlertBot at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts) but customarily, the "not moved" closure has been treated as "consensus to not move". Note that several above votes, including mine, recommended "reclose as no consensus" (that will not make a practical difference now, but might have a weight for a future RM). No such user (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "not moved" is so often (I'd say almost universally) used to denote both "Consensus not to move" and "No consensus to move". This is a ubiquitous practice, and I can't see how this MR can affect it. Ultimately THREEOUTCOMES is a bit of a dead letter in this regard; needs to be reinvigorated somehow. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit off-topic, but I don't believe such confusion exists? If the closer wants to do a "no consensus" close, they bold "no consensus". If they don't, it's a "not moved" closure. Think THREEOUTCOMES has been honored well enough here. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The close reflected the consensus closely enough. If the argument is that the close should have been "no consensus" rather than "not moved", then per File:MRV_Flowchart.png, just leave an angry note on the talk page; if the argument is that the close should have been "move", that would have been a supervote, especially since the default is to not move and favor the status quo in RMs. I'm just going to focus on one philosophical point: in very well-attended discussions by good-faith editors who cite conflicting guidance, the scope to ignore the raw vote count is lessened by the closer. There needs to be a really strong case that the majority side is somehow making a "mistake", an error of fact, or doing something deeply inconsistent that will cause problems later to rule for the minority. In closing discussions with just 4 !voters and a nominator, sure, sometimes a closer can spot an obvious LOCALCONSENSUS and override it, but that's because the closer is confident that based on other, better-attended discussions, this hypothetical thinly attended discussion going the other way is just an odd one out. Anyway, I disagree the current title violates policies to begin with, but set that aside for a moment. Assume that the closer did accept that in this case, the MOS default rules would favor the pro-move side. This isn't a matter like copyright compliance where 1 right person beats 100 wrong people. Lots of manuals of style exist, and ours has been modified many times in the past 20 years. It is not inviolable law, nor should it be. Even if hypothetically a majority are going against black letter MOS guidance, that just means that either the case is an IAR exception, or the MOS itself should be updated, because the MOS says whatever the community wants it to say. So basically overturning to move would be doubly wrong - once for the arguments raised in the RM itself (that, among other aspects, that "New York Subway" is a proper name for a New York subway), and once again because even if those arguments were rejected, there's a strong majority thinking that this case is a valid exception, and for style matters exceptions are unremarkable and common. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That: "New York Subway" is a proper name for a New York subway, is only a reasonable and valid statement of any weight if it can be substantiated (by evidence to same). All of the guidelines and policies being cited in this matter ultimately come back to WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NPOV, and the guidelines referred to are consistent with same. Statements like: the majority of the arguments [are based on] ... the broad spectrum of reliable sources that use the term in a relevant manner ... can only carry weight if such a statement is verifiable. This is not supported by actual evidence even when it was explicitly requested to identify same. Moreover, there exists contra-evidence that has not been disputed. The close appears to override policy in favour of a vote. While it might identify some of the issues, it certainly fails to show how one would be convinced as to the "strength" of arguments, particularly in respect to primary matters of policy. The arguments against are primarily based on opinion yet (per WP:5P2): Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence" to which I have specifically referred to herein are the sources cited by the article itself. Whether they are a "risible google-dredge" may be another matter but not one raised by me. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To try to keep on topic of a move review rather than Requested Move Part 2: Closers are supposed to evaluate consensus. If you're "right", Cinderella157, you didn't make the case to enough of the participants in the RM. If things had gone the other way - that a solid majority of the good-faith, non-canvassed !voters citing relevant policies had voted move, the discussion was closed as move, and some anti-move editor opened a MR citing policies rather than consensus - I'd still be voting Endorse, despite voting against the move during the normal RM discussion. SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as uninvolved. From looking over the discussion, it appears that it is clear that most wish to keep the article title and that they have their own valid rationales. A large portion of the pro-move comments came from Dicklyon and Cinderella157 replying to many !votes, to the point of creating an entire new subsection, which appears not to have convinced the original commenters. I also echo the thoughts of the IP above, and find the suggestion by SMcCandlish to relist as baffling given that the discussion had died down a week before the close. We absolutely do not need another trainwreck rehashing of these arguments as has happened at the original RM, FOARP's talk page, and now here by some users above. eviolite(talk)04:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A big trout for anyone going through a Move Review just to change it from "not moved" to "no consensus". That is not what I wrote WP:THREEOUTCOMES for. I'll add a clarification, because we get something like this a couple times a year. Anyway, "no consensus" seems reasonable, so I would've just added "this is probably better considered no consensus to the talk page" and be done with it. RedSlash23:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as back up here, Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options doesn't even give a listing for changing the nature of a "not moved" close, because it's a pointless thing to do. On my talk page Dicklyon and Tony requested a relist/admin close, and this was the only remedy that they requested, even though Dicklyon conceded that an admin close would also likely result in the page not being moved, and even that it being closed as consensus not to move was a possibility ("Likely "no consensus to move", but less likely "consensus to not move""). They haven't even asked for any specific remedy in this MRV, because there is no plausible remedy it can offer. SMcCandlish in contrast requested a flip to no consensus on my talk page, but above is requesting overturn to moved which is frankly an outcome that is never going to be arrived at. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction matters. No consensus to move is just no consensus, but a consensus to not move has precedential value and is apt to be cited in other RMs. Instead of assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid or crazy, why not try asking why people care about a no-consensus-to-move versus consensus-to-not-move distinction? The fact that they do should tell you that they have reasons. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The issues, such as what conclusions can be drawn from sources and whether the name is a proper name, were fully aired on both sides within policy. Participants, having considered these issues, were generally opposed to moving, and that bottom line was the consensus. Some reviewers above debate between "not moved" and "no consensus"; on that point, I endorse the finding of a consensus against moving and also agree with Havelock Jones. Adumbrativus (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: The result here is to endorse the closure. The actual discussion of the move included solid policy-based arguments on both sides. Whether the result should have been "no consensus" or "consensus not to move" does not matter much, but we should observe that it was a close discussion. There should be no rush to renew the discussion, the current title having been the same for 10 years at least, but there should also not be any finite moratorium on starting a new discussion. I recommend that all parties re-read WP:TITLE, think about it carefully and avoid starting another discussion too soon. It may be helpful to try again at WP:FAC (see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City Subway/archive2) rather than arguing about the title. JehochmanTalk14:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closure is not considered reasonable. The correct outcome, which may be no consensus, would result in no page move. This is a complex and controversial issue that requires an administrator to close. Recommend to overturn and reopen so it can be closed correctly. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this would have been an excellent candidate for a panel close. It's difficult to say anything useful about the consensus, but a pure "no consensus" is not accurate either. The issue isn't COMMONNAME (I see sufficient consensus Imia/Kardak is not the common name), it is whether there is any other possible title that does not violate POVNAME. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't close it after my relisting ran out. I thought at the very least that an admin should close the request. Concur that a panel close would have been an even better option. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ellsworth, in your comments thus far, you have stated you are aware that Imia is a controversial subject. That's welcoming. However, I disagree that ignoring Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRAL rules does constitute a careful and an appropriate aproach on the matter. By suggesting that we stick with a double name formula which violates WP:POVNAME (and which isnt supported by any naming rules), certainly isn't a neutral solution, or the solution. Is the problem we are supposed to solve. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)05:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RMNAC: "many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there ... any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate". This is a perfectly appropriate forum for doing this, and an admin (or even panel) close might have been desirable but not having one is not a ground for overturning the close. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was unreasonable on several levels, one or two of which appears to escape you. One important point made in the RM was that it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to take sides, or even seem to take sides, in a territorial dispute between other nations. You have not addressed that point, and I consider it to be important. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closure isn't unreasonable. Your arguments for Move Review are unreasonable: You asked that we ignore every rule in Wikipedia, as well as every naming guideline, that we ignore wp:neutrality, that we ignore which term most WP:RS do use, you asked that we ignore the wp:consensus formed against double names, you asked that we ignore the rationale used for titling every single other article in the same Topic Area... and you asked that we satisfy your POV for the sake of... "Turkish citizens and the rest of the world" [4], based on faulty "neutrality" arguments which are irrational at best, and certainly not how Wikipedia works. I am afraid the problem isn't FOARP's closure but your approach on the matter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. Reasons:
There was a significant majority in favour of moving. Whilst head-count is not everything, this certainly should count for something.
The people in favour of moving had a straight-forward reading of WP:SLASH, WP:CONSISTENT, and WP:COMMONNAME (with supporting evidence) in their favour. Their straight-forward arguments explained their brevity. Against that was set primarily doubts about the evidence presented by the move !voters to support WP:COMMONNAME, but what appeared lacking was high-quality evidence to support the opposite conclusion.
Alternative names were suggested by opposers, but these were not adopted by the majority of !voters. I did not mention this in my close, but it was notable that a number of the oppose !voters also did not think the present title to be appropriate. As was pointed out in the discussion, there were only two real choices for name given the problems of the present name, and no-one was arguing that Kardak was the correct name.
The discussion was ripe for closure and had already been relisted twice. Only one additional vote was cast after the last re-list. Further relisting seemed unlikely to be productive in that circumstance.
Per WP:RMNAC: "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure". If Paine Ellsworth thought an Admin close necessary they should have requested one at WP:AN in timely fashion after their re-list expired.
No reasoning has been provided yet here or in the previous discussion on my talk page as to why the close was unreasonable. A close being so unreasonable as to require overturning is a higher bar than the close simply being not the close you would have made. All I've seen here and on my talk page is that this is not the close Paine Ellsworth would have made, which is not surprising, because they did not close it. FOARP (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have closed it at all, because it was far too complex an issue for me to close. And I did give you reasoning on your talk page as to why I think the closure was unreasonable. There is no numerical superiority when out of 26 !votes, only 16 (62%) supported the rename. Nor have you responded to the issue of Wikipedia taking sides, or appearing to take sides, in a delicate situation where land is disputed between two nations. It might go a long way if you could address at least that issue. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a basic note, 62% would be a considered a significant majority in any election. This was particularly so given that one of the Oppose !votes was "Oppose but not very strictly" and stated that the move had some merit. Others amongst the opposers said they preferred alternative names to the present, which again tends to emphasise the majority in favour of moving since these people also did not actually prefer the present name, meaning that a close that resulted in the title being kept did not fully reflect their view. As for Wikipedia taking sides or appearing to take sides, I did respond on my talk page on this point - we have simple, straight-forward, easy-to-apply guidelines/policies regarding this kind of situation, which are not arbitrary or predetermined so as to give a result in favour of one side or the other. If we apply those policies and guidelines and get a specific outcome, based on objective criteria and evidence, then we have not "taken sides" regardless of the outcome. I do not wish to rehash the arguments made by the move !voters in the RM on this point, though they were in my view pretty strongly made. FOARP (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And just like on your talk page, this is not specific. I brought this to review because it is not specific. Just to say "we have simple, straight-forward, easy-to-apply guidelines/policies regarding this kind of situation, which are not arbitrary or predetermined so as to give a result in favour of one side or the other" is only meaningful if the policies and guidelines are cited. Which policies and guidelines tell us that it's okay for Wikipedia to take sides in a land dispute between nations? I don't remember reading anything like that. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there01:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines/policies that lead to this conclusion are the ones cited in my close. The example of the Senkakus (and hundreds of other such disputes in which Wikipedia uses a single name) were debated extensively in the RM, this debate forms part of the consensus as I assessed it. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is no point for me to participate in the discussion anymore, but as someone who familiarized themselves with the naming guidelines, I am obliged to bring to the attention of all editors the following facts to make sure any misunderstanding over slashed names is cleared out:
There is no naming guideline in Wikipedia suggesting that picking a single name for an article title constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality (aka "picking sides in a dispute") Contrary, WP:NEUTRAL, tells us to avoid double names.
There is no naming guideline suggesting that the titling of geographic articles has to be dependent to their political status (disputed, etc) or reflect the claims of countries to it by using double, triple, or quadruple names (depending on the number of countries claiming them). For obvious reasons, as to avoid exactly these kinds of unecyclopedic and weird titles in the Disputed Territories Topic Area, i.e. Senkaku/Diaogu/Tiaoyutai islands for Senkaku islands, since 3 countries are claiming them.
There is no naming guideline suggesting that slashed names may be used. WP:SLASH and WP:POVNAMING tell us that slashed names should be avoided.
[Related to WP:SLASH, above]: Imia and Kardak are alternative names, unrelated to each other. Since 1) Alternative ≠ Related, 2) SLASH (/) in titles suggests a Relation between the two names, and 3) no WP:RS exist to ever confirm this Relation, then we can safely conclude that the use of slashed titles (Imia/Kardak) is wrong, their relation is not based on WP:RS, and thus falls under WP:OR and should be dropped.
Since P. Ellsworth's concerns here appear to be about neutrality, I think WP:NEUTRAL (which is about neutrality) is the best answer to these concerns. Like mentioned above, WP:NEUTRAL, and particularly the section about names, is telling us to do the opposite of what P. Ellsworth is suggesting here: that we should not be using slashed names.
There is simply no naming guideline in Wikipedia to support the arguments P.E. has raised here. And if we are meant to be neutral here, then we gotta make sure Imia shouldn't constitute the lonely exception with a slashed name in the Disputed Territories Topic Area at the expense of the naming rules, the consistency and the rationale used for every other article's titling in the same Topic Area where all the 200+ disputed territories are avoiding slashed names. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)13:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse FOARP made a compelling, policy-justified close that took into account all the points raised during the discussion. Opening a move review is unnecessary and unproductive. --Dr.K.20:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per FOARP, User:力 and User:Dr.K.. The consensus formed at the RM is that Imia/Kardak isn't the common name. Therefore, User:Paine Ellsworth's argument that there was "no consensus" is problematic. Also, considering that Ellsworth relisted the RM the second time, and barely anyone came to !vote anymore (the last !voter came on 1st November and for the past 2 weeks, the RM was dead and ripe for closure) I am not convinced why relisting it for a third time will help in any way. Consensus has been reached, the move is policy-compliant (unlike the previous name which was violating Wikipedia's policies), and the closer is a completely uninvolved and impartial volunteer. The closure was neutral, follows the good practices in the Disputed Territories Topic Area and is consistent by following the same rationale used for every other article title in this topic area. Therefore I am surprised to hear Ellsworth saying that the closure isn't reasonable.
Comment. Gentle reminder to not clobber your opposition. This is the first time in my 15-year career in this place that I take part in this obscure exercise of second-guessing a move. So you have to excuse my lack of knowledge of this obscure rule, which also happens to be unnecessary, because even a cursory look at the original RM will reveal my central part in it. So, don't try to gain advantage this way. Dr.K.07:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share this point, but, still, gentle reminders are unnecessary and downright annoying, especially for editors unfamiliar with the RM review ecosystem. Dr.K.22:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, more or less everyone above except the requestor (Paine) and powera are involved. As another involved editor, I’d say this was poorly closed and seems supervote-y. I’d also say it’s incorrect on the facts; opposers did provide evidence of usage, and supporters largely did not. Google hits and whatnot were easily refuted, and my oppose provided specific sources using the different text. Numerically supports might’ve had an advantage, but most supports were single sentences “per COMMONNAME” without expanding on their rationale; opposes were more substantive and longer, and were policy based and clear refutations of substantive support arguments. I don’t see how a reasonable closer could ascertain consensus to move ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, what did you expect from the move !voters to say except the straight-forward, easy-to-follow reasoning which is WP:COMMONNAME? For once, the oppose !voters produced some large amounts of text where they 1) failed to cite any naming rules/guidelines to support this double name formula, 2) they failed to explain why WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't be used instead, and 3) they failed to provide any substantial alternative statistics to rebut it. Like User:力 has said above: the issue isn't even the common name here, but that the previous title was violating Wikipedia's rules. Considering all these facts, the single but meaningful policy-compliant sentences of the !votes casted by the move !voters are a clear message that Wikipedia's naming rules should be followed.
Like how a well-respected admin in Wikipedia has once said: the strength of the !votes isn't measured by the amount of text in them, but by how rational they are. Considering that Imia is a sensitive topic, complying with the Project's rules is the most rational move if Wikipedia really strives to stay neutral here, like how it did about every other dispute in the same topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)12:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Uninvolved). The question we are to ask in this forum is whether the closer properly followed WP:RMCI and not whether we ourselves would close the discussion in the same way. If I had closed this discussion, I may well have done so as no consensus: the !votes split 16/10 which I wouldn't consider to amount to a numerical consensus and there are strong arguments on both sides. That said, I find the closing statement to be well reasoned and in my view it reflects a proper determination of consensus.
It would have been better if the closing statement had specifically addressed the strong opposing argument by ProcrastinatingReader, but this can reasonably be seen to have been answered by SilentResident, albeit at unnecessary length. At the risk of engaging with the underlying argument, the point is well made that WP:WIAN is only useful where a widely accepted name exists. WP:NCGN says, "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names." The procedure referenced takes us to: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems." That is exactly what happened here.
As an aside, I agree with Paine Ellsworth's comment that SilentResident's conduct in the RM was tending towards badgering. Her opening rationale for the RM was very strong and I found little she said after that persuaded me more.
I do think it was bold of FOARP to close this discussion. It's clearly a close call and a contentious issue. Nevertheless, WP:RMNAC says, "The mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." I see no other reason to reverse the closure and accordingly endorse. Havelock Jones (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as a WP:BADNAC, either. I've given your argument many times here at MRV to endorse other closers' decisions. And I'm a NAC myself, so I hope nobody gets the wrong idea about that. FOARP is one of the best editors on Wikipedia and a seasoned closer. And yet look at the facts even you point out about the lack of consensus in this move request. While it was a fairly close call, I think there is one aspect that FOARP did not seem to take into consideration. How is it in the best interests of Wikipedia to take sides, or even appear to take sides, in a delicate territorial dispute between two nations? (Not rearguing the RM, just stating a major point that was made in the RM that further makes the closure unreasonable.) P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Havelock Jones:, mind you if I reply here, since you mentioned my conduct? Yes, I am afraid Paine Ellsworth's statement that my conduct in the RM was tending towards badgering, is correct. There were other opportunities before that, but when I saw Ellsworth's statement, I got really concerned and sought more feedback from independent and uninvolved admins: [5] regarding my conduct where I explained to them that: "[...] the new reviewer (Paine Ellsworth) has suggested against my further participation to it. I could appreciate any feedback on the matter.. The uninvolved party agreed with Ellsworth's statement as well and suggested that I "give it a little time": [6], an advice which I heeled to, and refrained from further participation at the RM. I wish I realized that mistake sooner, when there were other opportunities for that. Or even before I started the RM. I may not too familiar with initiating RMs myself, but I am learning even if slowly sometimes. My priority anymore is to not let my badgering-like misconduct be the reason Wikipedia loses this opportunity to become more neutral. I wouldn't forgive myself for that. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth:: quoting your statement: I think there is one aspect that FOARP did not seem to take into consideration. How is it in the best interests of Wikipedia to take sides, or even appear to take sides, in a delicate territorial dispute between two nations? (Not rearguing the RM, just stating a major point that was made in the RM that further makes the closure unreasonable.) To say that by picking a single name Wikipedia is picking sides in the dispute, is just a very flawed argument. The fact that all the 200+ disputed territory articles's titles got single names only, never implied that Wikipedia is taking sides. So I wonder why it would imply that here? Using the most prominent name in sources isn't picking sides, is being neutral and reflecting on sources. It worries me that you, despite being an experienced editor, are willing to give the less-prominent alternative names a WP:UNDUE weight on article titles despite the WP:POVNAME guidelines telling you to not do such a thing and despite such problematic double-name rationales not existing in the Disputed Territory topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)18:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was wondering how you would respond to that. The Imia/Kardak situation is far more delicate in the present than others to which you've alluded. By titling this article with the Greek-preferred name, Wikipedia shows Turkish citizens and the rest of the world that Wikipedia thinks those islands belong to Greece, and that Turkey should relinquish their claims on the territory. Is that the "neutral" message you want Wikipedia to send to the world? P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there18:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Greek preferred"? "Wikipedia shows Turkish citizens"? When I am reading your arguments here, Ellsworth, you are instilling me less and less faith that your Move Review here is non-political. You argue that you are trying to be "neutral", but in the progress you are picking sides by giving the less prominent name undue weight at the expense of wp:neutral rules and the naming guidelines, even though it is not used as often in reliable sources, and that for... nationalist reasons? Really? It is time that you familiarize yourself with the naming rules, and stop conditioning an article title name on whether it is disputed or not, before you set a dangerous precedent for any other of the 200 disputed territories in Wikipedia. FuturePerfectAtSunrise already warned at the RM that POV warriors have attempted this double name formula in the past using similar arguments and is the reason WP:POVNAMING was created. That's really low of you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)18:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could be turned around. Your use of "less prominent" for the Turkish name of "Kardak" gives you the appearance of doing exactly what you say I'm doing. I have absolutely no stake in the conflict between Greece and Turkey for any territories in the Aegean dispute. Don't care either way. My only allegiance here is to Wikipedia, and this encyclopedia should not even appear to take sides in such land disputes. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there19:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but if your allegiance here really is Wikipedia, then this is a strange way to express it. The community has made a set of rules and guidelines and works on consensus where necessary, for the sake of neutrality and stability. How are you helping the Project from the moment you have suggested that literally every rule is ignored just so that we satisfy your POV, especially on such a sensitive article like this one? Sorry but ignoring Wikipedia's core content policies such as WP:NEUTRAL and every naming guideline, or the consensus which formed against double names, isn't helpful and is nonconstructive. You may not have realized it, but the reason the RM has been dragged around, is you and not because picking single names in the Disputed Territory Topic Area equals "picking sides"! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: striking per feedback by Havelock Jones. I am afraid continuing this discussion isn't fruitful anymore and may amount budgering so I believe it will be better if I just end this here and leave. Points are already made clear and there is no need to repeat myself. Wishing you all a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less a personal attack. I agree with Paine's reasoning, and I also personally couldn't care less about this particular dispute, or any other dispute, between Greece and Turkey, and don't edit in this topic area. My understanding is that the same is true of Paine, though afaik is not true of you. It's worth considering the possibility that there are non-nationalistic reasons for people to disagree with your viewpoint and understanding of policy, even if you don't agree with those reasons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and suggest speedy close because what the initiating user is seeking is specifically disallowed (uninvolved). Per WP:RMNAC “the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate.” Calidum23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a mis-representation of the MRV nomination.
Closure is not considered reasonable. The correct outcome, which may be no consensus, would result in no page move. This is a complex and controversial issue that requires an administrator to close. Recommend to overturn and reopen so it can be closed correctly.
But PE has given no reason why the close was unreasonable (aside from the closer being a non-admin) and it’s not up to us to do that for him. Calidum00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"No reason"? Why do you ignore the other reasons I've given? Try this: “the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." However, when there are other reasons to reverse a closure, then that mere fact may have been a factor that helps to make the closure unreasonable. I didn't open this review because it was closed by a non-admin, I opened this review because the closure was incorrect and should be reversed. Proof of the pudding: if the closer had been an admin who closed as moved, I still would have opened this review. The article title should not have been moved to Imia! There was insufficient reason to do so. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PE has stated that he disagreed with the close, but all of the reasons they've given are things that fall within the margin of appreciation of the closer, and are not examples of an unreasonable close. For example, is 16:10 in favour of moving a significant majority or not? I think it is, PE thinks it isn't, but this isn't a situation where I was being unreasonable, such as, for example, a situation where the sides were equal or even very nearly equal and I was saying that they weren't. Similarly, PE appears to think the WP:COMMONNAME argument of the move !voters was rebutted by the oppose !voters, but I stated in my close that they cast doubt on it but did not firmly rebut it with e.g., high-quality numerical data - had the oppose !voters actually provided such data this would be an unreasonable close, but they didn't, so it is simply my interpretation of the consensus as closer. Finally PE thinks the close risks giving the impression of partiality on the part of Wikipedia in an international dispute, but this is PE's interpretation of partiality requires, and (again, without rehashing the RM, or dipping into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) it is trivial to point to the hundreds of examples of similar disputes in which Wikipedia already uses one country's name for a territory disputed by two or more countries, even ones where large-scale war threatens and which are much more heated than the dispute under discussion here.
I also think that Calidum can be forgiven for wondering why this review has been brought given that PE has stated that the close was not a WP:BADNAC and that the reason it was brought was not because it was a non-admin closure, leaving no clear reason for it having been brought beyond disagreement with the close. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do disagree with 16:10 as a significant majority. 19: or 20:10 (or 16:8 or :9) with strong arguments both in support and in opposition would be a rough consensus. In this case the opposers had stronger arguments, which turns the 16:10 !vote into a no-consensus decision. It surprises me that anybody would endorse that. And just because there is inconsistency as concerns other titles that really should be changed so as not to indicate the appearance of the English Wikipedia taking sides in the disputes of nations does not make it right. "Imia/Kardak" is the long-standing title of this article for good reason, and changing it to just "Imia" is not how editors should show this encyclopedia's neutrality. The closure was incorrect and unreasonable, and as pointed out early on, this was a prime candidate for a panel of editors to close. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there11:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
„..even ATP Tour website referred the city as Nursultan..“ is the SOLE argument pro the name „Nur-Sultan“ in the discussion. (others include just claims like „Oppose (pro Nur-Sultan).. according to WP:COMMONNAME and the likes of it)
The figures and numbers shown, make it obvious, that Astana definitely still is the more used name in English sources (using Google Scholar). So, per WP:COMMONNAME this makes „Astana“ the article's name.
I am not sure why this discussion was closed in that way. It can be closed, but with the outcome, that the article's name is moved back to Astana.
Endorse. No one except you supported moving, and serious policy-based arguments were made that Nur-Sultan is now the common name. As such, there's no way that this could have been closed in any other way. I would encourage Tecumseh*1301 – who has now filed two MRs in as many months – to refrain from challenging closures without a very good reason. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, procedural and decorum failure. I count eight RM discussions, and their quality decreases. Impose a 6-month moratorium. Speedy close any new RM proposal that does not summarise the prior RM discussions.
Oppose I am sorry, if there is strong evidence, that Astana is the common Name, than a hundred of pro Nur-Sultan supporters can show up, demanding that they are right and there will not be a consensus.
(often there were IP-adresses only, copy and pasting the same proposals) - is this a joke?
„The current title matches the title of the capital at the native language..“ - this does not matter on Wikipedia, this didnt matter for Prayagraj, so it cant matter for Nur-Sultan.
Common Name is the one important Argument. And this Argument is pro the name Astana.
I thought the closer's summary was awful. The closer did not seem to understand that Astana was the old name for the city, and Nur-Sultan the new one, and that what Tecumseh*1301 had proposed was that the article on the city should be moved back to the old name.-- Toddy1(talk)19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about future moves was in direct response to Another question: Does anyone believe, this christened after a still alive president name, will endure much long after this presidents death?. It should be assumed that the closer had read the three (not counting speedy-closed) previous RM discussions still on the talk page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note my "Speedy close any new RM proposal that does not summarise the prior RM discussions" part. User:Tecumseh*1301 in particular has been making very shallow over-simplifying proposal statements and posts that do not respect the prior discussions. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please show a reference, where it is shown, that Nur-Sultan is the common Name?
Since you requested the move, it is you who should have provided the evidence that Astana is the common name. You were repeatedly told why the evidence you provided was insufficient. You didn't address those comments, so other editors opposed the move. You need to WP:LISTEN to what editors have said here and in the move request and stop being disruptive. Vpab15 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult me as disruptive, I have not insulted you, have I?
I have provided evidence, that Astana in fact is the common name and who called this evidence insufficient?
So, are you telling, that noone ever provided evidence, that Nur-Sultan is the common Name.. are you serious?
They are not insulting you, and they are serious. They are trying to give you feedback about why other editors opposed the move you proposed.-- Toddy1(talk)19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tecumseh*1301: please do not take offense. Move review has been a great learning experience for me, and it can be the same for you. Gentle important reminder... move review is all about the closure and not a place to reargue the requested move. Here at MRV, the important thing is whether or not the closure was reasonable in accordance with the local consensus, policies and guidelines. So we must stick to that. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there22:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but let's not get distracted. I have asked numerous times now, if anyone can provide a link or a source, which clearly shows, that Nur-Sultan ever was the common Name in English.
I, with Toddy1's help, have provided a source (Google Scholar) that in fact, Astana is the common Name. So can please, finally, someone take care of renaming the article to it's original, Astana and stick to Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME guidelines instead of writing about other aspects?
So,as it is obvious that the common Name in Englishnever was Nur-Sultan,but stayed Astana who will finally correct the mistake of moving the article to Nur-Sultan and rename the article? Or is there so much love for the dictator Nursultan Nazarbajev, that Wikipedia guidelines should not apply here anymore? I dont get it, that noone reacts to the obvious mistake of moving the article in the first place.
