As promised, I am challenging this. This is the same as last time, we cannot even have a full day of debate. The same people always show up (probably have the page on their watchlist, see WP:OWNERSHIP). This man legally changed his name and many major media organizations (aka "reliable sources") refer to him by his new name, yet debate must be shut down because several people just blindly point to a policy (WP:COMMONNAME) without addressing the fact that the person legally changed his name and doesn't want to be called this. Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's clearly no way that discussion was going anywhere. It was IMO poor form to early close a nomination saying I will dispute this if anyone closes this prematurely again because the result of doing that was entirely predictable, but since we're here there's no reason not to endorse. * Pppery *it has begun...04:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved) I can generally get behind Pppery's statement that there's no reason not to endorse, but the close seems almost blatantly premature. WP:SNOWBALL states, in part, If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. I don't think it's an unreasonable objection to be opposed to the closure of a discussion after only a singular day. It is entirely possible that the discussion could have taken a complete 180 with completely opposite views within even 24 hours from the time of the close. I feel it's also perhaps pertinent to remind everyone that there is not, in fact, a deadline. The fact that a discussion goes on for a full seven days is not necessarily, in and of itself, a bad thing, no matter how clear cut the outcome may look. On a different note, I will point out that Rusf10 did not discuss with the closer prior to bringing this to move review, despite that even the page notice at the top states, in big bold letters, Prior to submitting your review of a page move discussion's close, you should attempt to discuss your concerns with the closer at their talk page. EggRoll97(talk) 07:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer: I really doubt that the RM needed to be open for the whole week. The nominator did not provide enough evidence to support the change (only mentioned ABC Nightline in the request, and only after several oppose !votes, provided more sources), tried to use a deadname situation to back it up, and even got the disambiguator wrong. Plus, Rusf10 did not attempt to discuss it with me before opening this MRV, notifying me only after submitting this review. I will dispute this if anyone closes this prematurely again is only a suggestion from the nominator, and does not need to be followed. We're not a burocracy, there's no need to waste editor time on a request that is guaranteed to fail. – MaterialWorks16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did not provide enough evidence to support the change... So basically you're telling us that you based the close on your opinion that my arguement was wrong, which backs up my view that it was closed early to prevent an actual debate from occurring. Secondly, you're right, I didn't bother to waste time discussing on your talk page because I previously stated that I would not accept this being closed in the exact manner that you closed it. How can you call me out for not following the exact procedure and at the same time justify your close by saying that this is not a bureaucracy?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying your argument was wrong, I am saying that, in the state that it was presented, it would never have a chance of succeeding.
How can you call me out for not following the exact procedure and at the same time justify your close by saying that this is not a bureaucracy? Early RM closures are a part of the process, and detailed over at WP:RMEC, while WP:IMR explicitly says that you absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond [emphasis in original]. – MaterialWorks22:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). This is the 4th RM discussion about this article in less than 2 years, and in the time it was open it received 7 opposes and 0 supports. This was an entirely appropriate snow close as it had no chance of succeeding. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great point! The last three discussions were all closed without even a full day of debate. Every single time a discussion is created, the regulars (including you) come in and say "no" and then someone is found to speedy close.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)w[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Rapid opposition by 7 opposes, no support, repetition of recurring rejected proposal, lack of evidence of substantial change in the situation, discourteous attitude, premature plan and premature use of move review. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) per above. There was not a snowball's chance in hell that a nomination of that quality would come to a different conclusion than any of the previous, higher quality nominations given no evidence anything significant has changed. Despite how much wintry weather this review attracts I would encourage leaving it open to reduce the chance of further drama. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This is a NAC of an RM without a blatantly obvious consensus. Regardless of the result found by the closer, I think they should provide the community a clear explanation of their reasoning, if not in the closing comments themselves, then in the post-close discussion. Neither occurred in this case, despite ample opportunity. In a case of finding no consensus as was done here, it is customary for the closer to show they understand both sides by summarizing each, and how they believe the arguments from both sides were about equally strong in terms of basis in policy. Due to the absence of such explanation alone I think the close should be at least reverted and relisted to allow someone else to review and close it. Furthermore, Support did have a 60/40 advantage in numbers, and, more importantly of course, in my view had a much stronger argument, so I really think the close should be overturned. В²C☎04:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After posting the above and all the notifications, I reviewed the discussion on MaterialWorks' talk page and finally realized what they meant by "this really should have been decided in the MRV". I was previously perplexed because of course MRVs occur after an RM closure. Well, I now see they were referring to the previous close, and felt that close should have gone to MRV and, apparently, this particular issue decided there. Well, as was explained in the RM discussion by BarrelProof me:
Yes, but that RM was for a large group of 17 articles; it was not focused on this particular article. See, e.g., WP:TRAINWRECK. The presence of the extra word "spaghetti" that identifies this distinct subgenre makes this topic a bit different from the others. This is the only one of those 17 articles in which the name of a subgenre appears somewhere that is not at the beginning of the article title, so it is the only one that produces a glaring difference in capitalization of the two words in a subgenre name in the article title.
I thought about a MRV. But this single letter capitalization in western was only one aspect of it. I decided focusing on just that one aspect in a new RM was the most efficient way to proceed.
So it made no sense to do a MRV of the entire TRAINWRECKprevious RM about Spaghetti when I wanted to focus on only this one of the 17 Western. The closer did not seem to understand and appreciate at least this aspect of the proposal and discussion. --В²C☎04:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got that wrong - the mention of RMV did not refer to the multimove discussion. I believe MaterialWorks was referring to the mention that the 30 August RM you opened should have been an RMV of the 24 July 2023 RM immediately above it. But they're welcome to clarify (and hopefully will). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! You’re right. I quoted correctly, but they were confused and that confused me. I should have caught that. Anyway, that previous RM was about lowercasing Spaghetti. There were !votes that addressed lowercasing Western also, enough for some to see a consensus on that too, but not enough for the closer. I thought since lowercasing Western wasn’t proposed in that RM that we didn’t get a definitive read on consensus about this particular issue; nothing an MRV was likely to resolve. So we needed a separate RM to focus on just that. Therefore taking into account the discussion in that previous RM, as the closer said they did in the post-RM discussion on their talk page, may distort what consensus is about that. And I did explain this in this RM too. Quote above fixed accordingly. Thank you. —-В²C☎14:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: MOS:GENRECAPS, and MOS in general, I think you tend to overcorrecting to achieve a style consistency that never existed. But if you're right, the styling error should be corrected at base articles, not obscure narrow focus list articles. I.e, at Western (genre), why is "Western" capitalised throughout? Are Wikipedians and the sources they use all wrong? A more extreme example of styling at odds to the MOS is found at Go (game). I suggest that it is not a good idea to write a rule that fits most cases, and then force it apply to all cases. That is not English. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have it both ways. If we mass-RM them, people pitch a fit about alleged differences between the types of titles. Then if we don't mass-RM them, people will object that they should be mass-RMed so as not to create even a temporary inconsistency. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. It doesn't matter at all from which end of the article list we start doing the cleanup, as long as it gets started and done. PS: Yes, Go (game) is a weird exception, and is one that probably should not exist; rather we should be italicizing is as non-English with {{Italic title}} and in the prose with {{lang|zh-Latn|go}}. The only reason an exception was made is because of the potential confusion with the English verb [to] go. The existence of one exception, that barely squeaked by after a great deal of debate, but which has a clear clarity rationale, is no reason to willy-nilly create more exceptions, that do not have such a rationale, but are a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT noise from people who like to capitalize genres despite us having a rule to not capitalize genres. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a lot of debate on Go? Can you point?
I only thought Go was more extreme than Western because "go" is an even more common word than "western". Both might deserve exception do the sentence being able to be misread.
I'm not saying Mass RM them, but that style changes should start at the base articles. The editors interested in fixing this perceived problem should start with editing Western (genre), not start with an RM on List of spaghetti Westerns. Using the RM process to drive editing consensus is a bad way to work. It's almost a reason to reject such RMs procedurally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization is really a terrible way to make a distinction. Italics, at least in theory, signal that stress should be placed on the italicized word when reading aloud. Capitalization has zero impact on spoken language, which is the root of all language. ~TPW13:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization can completely change the meaning as well as the pronunciation of certain words. Otherwise people would Polish their silverware and speak polish. Station1 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Overturn for an experienced closer to reclose. I think "no consensus" is probably correct, but I more strongly think that NAC-ers should NOT be closing highly contested moves with detailed arguments going both ways with a closing statement of containing no meaningful explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Closure was more than reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI. MW is experienced enough for this type of close. I would have closed this RM the exact same way, as both supporters and opposers had good strong arguments, yet there were not enough of each to overcome the other in spite of the nom's belief otherwise. Good close!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there17:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved, except as relister) The closure looks fine, and the fact that the closer is not an admin is not a valid argument per the closing instructions, which state, assuming the criteria above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure, found at WP:RMNAC. In addition, it states specifically, While non-admins should be cautious...when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate. Good close by an experienced user. EggRoll97(talk) 01:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturninvolvedper SmokeyJoe. It is not so much that this was an non-admin close but it failed to give a closing statement of any detail where, in the circumstances, a detailed statement was reasonably required. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking overturn. The closer has now provided a barely sufficient explanation of their close to address the primary issue by which the close should be reverted or overturned. Whether the closer has sufficiently explained the consistency rational by simply stating: which holds more weight on the oppose side does not address the counter arguments given by the support side that specifically addressed the issue of consistency. The rationale has something of the appearance of a supervote, since it does not address and balance the other issues raised in respect to other P&G and why these should be weighed against consistency the way that it has. Rather than giving an explanation, the closer would quote the previous close, when there is a fairly clear opinion that the previous close was itself questionable: no super compelling reason [...] to override the uppercased "Western" naming convention. Relying on the previous close in this way gives the appearance that the arguments made in each case did not vary in any substantial way. The proposed move was clearly contentious. While I have removed the my overturn there are reasons to assert that the close, in these circumstances, is still less than satisfactory. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSmokeyJoe has made some very pertinent comments with which I would generally agree. In hindsight, the multi-move discussion and a finding of no consensus did not resolve the issue and that close was even more brief than the one being considered here. The close probably required a lot closer look at the discussion that what occurred. Several !VOTES made early in the discussion may have been made with quite good reason when they were made but, as the discussion progressed, the reasons given no longer carried weight. Other comments could be characterised as gratuitous and carry no substantial weight. For a rarity, those opposing have relied on ngram data; however, as an extended discussion of this data would indicate assertions made in respect to this data requires a close scrutiny to determine which data should be given weight and which should not. In closing the first of the moves for spaghetti Western, the closer did suggest that broader input on the question of capitalising western might be appropriate. While the closer of this move did not make a similar comment, it should be apparent from the comments that the underpinning issue is one of consistency with a capitalisation convention for which there is no consensus. Even those that have opposed this move have generally acknowledged this issue and, the issue remains unresolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree it's best to recap the key points when closing; however, the finding of no consensus in this case seems appropriate given the debate, and anyone else would probably conclude the same, so that lack by itself doesn't seem like sufficient reason to overturn. (And nor does the closer's status as a non-admin, per RMNAC.) Would simply encourage the closer to elaborate in future. ╠╣uw[talk]11:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (specially for the RM closer, MaterialWorks) Seems the most important complaint here is that you left too concise a closing statement. This complaint has also been made against one or two of my closures. Please consider adding more information to this RM's closing statement. One reason is to make it easier for editors who come along later and read the RM. So for "posterity's" sake, please go back in and add explanatory info to your closing statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there12:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better not to modify the statement after the MRV is closed, since modifying the closing statement after the MRV is closed could cause additional questioning of whether the new statement is appropriate or not. In principle, an MRV is a review of a closure, so the closure should not change unilaterally after it has been reviewed. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MaterialWorks, if you intend to modify the close now, it is perfectly reasonable for you to modify the closed discussion as the closer provided this is clearly indicated. It might also be added as an addendum subsection outside the close. While either would work, I am inclined to the former, since that would make it an intrinsic part of the close (as it should be) and it would be quite discrete from any further discussion that might arise from the amendment. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is perfectly reasonable to modify the close NOW. It is also perfectly reasonable to revert your close, which you could have / should have done immediately on discovering that you close was challenged.
Weighing in this RM, the previous one, and the multi-move discussion, I could not find a consensus for this change. Wordy, and about yourself, not the discussion.
While there is a slightly higher amount of support !votes, both sides presented strong arguments, which were not enough to overturn each other, wordy, no substance, is begging “why not?” Mayby why not is coming …
As noted by Schierbecker in the previous discussion, …. You’re quoting from another discussion, not the one you’re closing. Your point should have been a !vote, not a closing summary. Did participants in the discussion cite Schierbecker?
Your last sentence cites CONSISTENT, which was mentioned by multiple participants. The closing statement would do better to comment on how many participants cited CONSISTENT and how strong their points were.
You cited “the multi-move discussion”. This should be linked.
Yeah? I'm the closer, the comment is going to be about what consensus I assessed from the discussion.
Not sure what you mean by "begging why not". This reads fine to me, though I guess it could be trimmed down a bit.
What's the problem with quoting from another discussion, if I'm going to say pretty much the same thing anyways? Schierbecker doesn't need to be cited by a participant for his comment to be included, as its relevant to the RM anyways.
Paine? Too concise? Please check the meaning of concise versus brief. Concise is a good quality, which is not the same as brief. Concise means the necessary information has been stated in a minimum of words. This close was not "too concise". It was "too brief". It was so brief that it looks like any closer can come along and close arbitrarily. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
:>) Semantics? My own NC closes are usually a tiny bit more precise and explanatory. But for decisive consensus to move or not move, unless the outcome is outside the box, my closes have usually been about as brief as this one. My closes should probably be reviewed more often – guess I've been lucky? ;>) (gotta go, I've a Dr's appt.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there12:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). SmokeyJoe did point out the "no consensus" is probably correct, so I'm not sure I see a point to overturn other than MaterialWorks (or someone else) clarifying the close? I get the reasoning behind the suggestion, but if MaterialWorks is correct (and there are endorsers who would concur with that), what does that do for the optics of their judgement in future RMs? The only other "overturns" have come from involved editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am wary that the rationale for reviewing this close is a bit shaky. It does not matter what the percentage breakdown was in the original discussion, because we do not vote. I think that stems from the practice of using the word "!vote" as a weird shorthand for something which is the opposite of a vote. When the human brains sees the word "vote," the human brain gets ready to vote. With the lack of detail in that close, it's possible that the closer counted opinions rather than weighing them. As I noted during that discussion, "appeals to emotion regarding capital letters shouldn't be given any weight. If the suggestion of 'spaghetti western' hadn't been firmly rejected by a minority of editors in the prior discussion, perhaps this one wouldn't be necessary at all." If one were to discount the personal preferences expressed, it's possible that another outcome may have been reached.~TPW13:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not conflate the undisputed fact that we do not simply count the votes to determine discussion outcomes (per WP:NOTVOTE), with the notion that counts do not matter at all. The distribution of opinions should always be a consideration, not completely ignored. In this case the 60/40 distribution does not determine the outcome, but it should be a consideration, especially since the 60 side had strong policy-based arguments. Nothing shaky about that at all. --В²C☎16:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I’ve found a second root cause for this mess.
The first is that the push for decapitalisation should have been made at Western (genre), which will not involve RM. RM has been misused to push MOS development sidestepping the root article.
The second is that User:BD2412 mis-closed Talk:List of Western subgenres#Requested move 12 July 2023. That was not a “no consensus to move” but a “consensus to not move”. Going for the weaker “no consensus” opened the door for the unsatisfied lowercase proponents to pursue their battle in other, more obscure, places.
@SmokeyJoe: There is a very clear absence of consensus in favor of the move proposed in the previous discussion, but certainly not a clear consensus in opposition to any such move in this field. BD2412T22:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is true. I think there was a rough consensus to not move. The proponents (MOS MOS MOS!) faced MOS counter arguments plus non-MOS counter arguments that the proponents didn’t answer. The discussion ran its course. Unfortunately, many read “no consensus” as an invitation to try again. They went somewhere else and didn’t sufficiently tie back to the recent failure. Your words “no consensus to move at this time” implies that a consensus may be found at a random different time.
You didn’t summarise why consensus wasn’t found, and that is a root cause for quickly repeated non-productive discussions in increasingly obscure places that are hoped to show a image of consensus due to the other side being exhausted.
Note from MRV nom. For those who have missed it, upon further coaxing from BarrelProof, Cinderella157, and SmokeyJoe, the RM closer, MaterialWorks, finally updated the RM close to include a decent explanation. For the record, had such an explanation been provided in the close originally, or after I asked for one on their talk page, I'm pretty sure I would not have filed this MRV. I urge MaterialWorks to always provide explanations in their closes, at least when it might be controversial, and certainly if asked. To be sure, I still think there's consensus to move, but it's close enough that, with the current reasonable explanation, the close can no longer be faulted sufficiently to reverse in my view.
That said, I just want to add that I think basis in RS usage for the whole "capitalize western" effort is biased at least to some significant degree by the fact that many of the examples relied upon are using title case. Furthermore, because western is legitimately capitalized in other contexts, like Western states, people are just cloning that familiar usage when referring to the film genre. That's why we should be careful to rely only upon usage in reliable sources. But that's just grist for another place on another day. --В²C☎04:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
