Relist (non-involved), the term 'Chair' emerged late in the discussion and was not addressed by many of the early participants. By that time 'Chairman' seems to have picked up the consensus per common name and the fact that it is, in this case, not gender-specific. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I read the discussion too quickly and have struck my mistake above. My point holds that 'Chairman' seems to have been the choice, per the nomination and the focus of the participants on the nominated choices, even after 'Chair' was introduced. This one still seems too close to say the consensus favored 'Chair' over the nommed 'Chairman', and a relisting may be the best option. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Should be noted that there was obvious consensus to move away from the then current title, so I might have invoked WP:OTHEROPTIONS to allow for a new formal RM discussion of Chair (officer) → Chairman (or whatever) and reduce the need for a move review. The result of this RM would have been the same, though, so this was a good closure, reasonable and in line with closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can the be? The closer tells us "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support among potential move targets" and that is either an error or a fabrication. It's not reasonable at all. Some RfC's and RMs simply need more time and this was one of them. It's not like it was 9-8 in favor of chairman and people wanted it to close in favor of chairmen. There is no consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A trusted admin closer's assessment of consensus is far more compelling than most others. Consensus is not a vote, the arguments and their strength are what determine consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He used the term "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support among potential move targets".... that is totaling and also dead wrong. Strength of argument is not mentioned at all. Something is not kosher with this closing and while I always respect your opinions, I'm at a loss as to why you don't see the error in this particular case. I think most times, with this brought up on the closer's talk page, the closer would have re-opened the discussion in seeing their error. Since that didn't happen it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) He struck out that bit and replaced it. On the talk page you wrote, "unless it's reversed I will take it to move review on that fabrication." It was reversed, it was struck and replaced, and yet you are so blind to the truth that here we are anyway. You not only don't have a leg to stand on, there is no excuse for even bringing this to move review. I realize that another editor actually brought it here, but I sense from your responses here that you would have brought it here if editor PadFoot hadn't. Thank you for your "while I always respect your opinions" statement, but there is no error in this RM closure. Wouldn't it be better if a new, fresh RM were to be opened, just as long as the closer is amenable to it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there19:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what he based it on was struck and changed to "Chair (officer) receives by far the most support least opposition among potential move targets." That is also a totaling. Yes, I absolutely would have brought it here but another editor beat me to it. I have no issue if another RM was re-opened. Usually that is pretty mush forbidden so soon after a close. You always hear "lets wait a year" and "that's disruptive for being so soon after another closing." Frankly, if it winds up being at "Chair (officer) or Chair (office)" I'm not going to be upset since at least it's a common term, just not as common as chairman and the fact that if possible we would rather shy away from an unnatural title with parentheses. What I object to is that a 9-8 tally in favor of chairman with what looks like equal strengths of arguments was suddenly closed in favor of chair (officer) with an explanation of chair (officer) receiving either "'by far the most support or by far the least opposition." That is flat-out wrong! Errors happen to everyone (I make more than my share to be sure) but this had a chance to be corrected and re-opened and it was not. There is one big problem with opening a new RM. Where does the title go in the meantime? Back to Chairperson? If not, Chair (officer) should get no preferential status if a new RM shows "no consensus." Something like 9-8 either way does not mean it stays at Chair (officer) as "no consensus to change." That would really be unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new RM would hopefully build a consensus for either the now current title or the proposed title. If however the outcome of the fresh RM turns out to be "no consensus", then the title must revert to a stable title that has actually held a consensus for a distinct period of time. Since there was a clear consensus in this RM against "Chairperson" as the title, then it won't be an easy decision. There is always a fair chance, though, that a consensus will develop. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there23:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that unlikely. We had two RMs where "chairperson" was the only compromise and now this one that ended 9-8 in favor of chairman but was moved to "chair (officer)" for some unknown reason. Fair chance seems somewhat remote to me. I do think there is a fair chance this closing will be overturned as improper, and I'm worried a new RM closer will say no consensus and simply keep it at chair (officer) on that basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (uninvolved) WP:RfCs are not a vote. The first comment in support of Chair (officer)occurred about 4 hours after the RfC's listing, showing the option was a part of the RfC discussion from nearly the beginning, with two additional supports of it happening in the first six hours of discussion and additional comments in support continued to be added until the close. Editors supporting Chair (officer) were more numerous and their comments had stronger ties to Wikipedia policy, as they were additionally supported by WP's Manual of Style, other English language style guides, and scholarly reliable sources. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) (to clarify, my comment is best understood as in line with WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not unsympathetic to this sort of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS closure, but I think it's relevant that when Chair (officer) was considered on its own in the previous RM, there was a "clear consensus" against it (which I remember because I was the closer). Consensus can of course change, but the closure seems to stretch NOGOODOPTIONS beyond what it can bear. I will have to think harder about what the right (or least wrong) answer is here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's always going to be a tough call on this issue. The last best choice, Chairperson, is gender neutral, but a rarely used term. Wikipedia is likely the only place that gives it any merit. Chairman is used the most but some look at it as sexually biased, some do not, and some don't care. "Chair" is at least fairly common and neutral but has that dreaded unnatural (officer) or (office) attached and why it was rejected last RM. Perhaps all should redirect to "Chairship" another fairly uncommon term but I hear it more than Chairperson these days. You see it used at quite varied places such as IDEA, and OED, and RSA, and the ESA, and UK's Third Sector. It's neutral and natural, but it is not common. But if we used it as our title, in the lead we could say the individual who holds the chairship, is usually called the chairman, chair, or chairperson, and each of those terms would redirect to "chairship." So no choices are great, but that was not the basis for the closure and the complaints here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:BD2412, did you consider the immediately prior thread RM that found consensus against? If you didn’t, you should now. I think you should mention that RM in your closing explanation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I did glance over it, but (a) the initiator of the new discussion appears to have pinged still-active users from the previous discussion, and (b) consensus in the new discussion was too overwhelming in favor of moving away from -person, and included some editors who had opposed in the previous discussion (User:Springee changing from oppose to support from one discussion to the next caught my eye). BD2412T14:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) consensus is not just a clear vote count. There's clear consensus for a move, so we have to pick one or the other. The MOS prefers gender neutral language. Participants disagree strongly on whether chairman is gender neutral or not, but it's obvious chair (officer) is gender neutral, so I think the "least opposition" close is about as correct as anyone is going to get here. SportingFlyerT·C09:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I personally support the move. However, by the numbers this was a no consensus. If we are going to say strength of argument I would like to see a stronger case why we should pick an option that wasn't offered over the one that was. The discussion may have enough to establish the final move but the close doesn't. Springee (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we agreed to change the question a bit. I think we have a clear consensus to move away from chairperson. After that we can debate if chair vs chairman has consensus and if those who prefer chairman would be content with chair. Springee (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the correct decision would be to allow for a new RM from the current title to the proposed title, but I can't see that gaining a consensus. SportingFlyerT·C17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'correct' decision would then be what WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE says, which is to move from the then-current title to one that's picked, but note in the close that there was only consensus to move away but no consensus for the newly-established title. If someone wanted to call a new RfC for further discussion, it should happen from the newly-picked title. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if this move was an error it should move back and THEN another RFC could be started. Why would we begin with an improper close title? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per Pinchme123's link, I don't think it was an error. Consensus clearly existed for a move, but not for a new title, and the closer clearly picked the least worst title. SportingFlyerT·C21:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, if that was the case, the closer MUST be very specific as WP:NOGOODOPTIONS tells us. It tell us the closer must "make clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen" and the closer is "strongly encouraged to provide an explicit closing statement in such closures." That was not what happened here and the closer was very precise in choosing the new title based on something different than what you suggest. That is why we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) - this looks like a clear case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, there was little support for retaining the status quo and the closer correctly notes that while support for the two main options chairman and chair (officer) was roughly 50-50, the opposition to the former option was more clearcut, and with reasons from those such as myself who preferred chair as to why going back to the prior title with its somewhat gendered connotations was not optimal. — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I'm not satisfied with the closing explanation, it's a contrived vote counting that does little to explain how the consensus was reached. I participated in the discussion. Killuminator (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I stated my preferences in the RfC. My analysis was in reference to what another user stated. I still think "chairman" would have been most appropriate, but if that isn't a good selection, "chair" would be the next most appropriate in my estimation. While I stand by my logical assertions, I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is going to agree with me (for whatever reason), so I put both options I find acceptable in ranked order. While I think the choice is wrong based on the evidence, I cannot fault the closer for selecting the closest option to a consensus. Let's say you have an article named "C". In a renaming discussion, 80% agree it shouldn't be C, but are nearly evenly split between "A" and "B". Leaving it as-is makes no sense, but a "minority" opinion can be chosen as the consensus is that "C" is wrong. I think the choice was a rational one, even if I don't agree with the outcome. Buffs (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first off, how are you? Been too long! I hope you're doing well.
Second off... do you remember when I closed the request for Chairman -> ?, leading to the first time this went to Move Review? We went back and forth a lot, as you clearly put a lot of thought into your arguments in the move request and you felt like I hadn't analyzed it thoroughly enough (and you let me know on my talk page!).
Good times, man, good times. It was especially fun watching people use WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which I wrote, against me in that move review. (Not really fun, especially when I had to acknowledge that y'all kinda had a point.) One of the most stressful times in my Wikipedia career.
It's hilarious that this very article has somehow now made it to MRV three times, and although back in 2019 you wanted to move it away from Chairman, now you're suggesting (though yes, obviously, you're not necessarily SUPPORTING, but please ignore that tiny detail, since it's funnier this way) a move request back from Chair (officer) to Chairman.
Man, five years and a few months, but if you close your eyes... sigh. Anyway, hope you're doing well. I actually can't even analyze the move request myself--my stomach literally started hurting as my cursor hovered over the link to the request. I want nothing to do at all at all with this! But you? You?
LOL! Yeah, I most certainly would not support a move to Chairman. Just saying proposing it is the way to test for (current) consensus about that. This article is finally where it should have been years ago. —В²C☎13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improper close, relist/reopen (involved) - This was closed as "most support" for chair (officer) which was wrong. After complaints it was changed to "least opposition" which was also wrong. If this was supposed to be WP:NOGOODOPTIONS the closer must specifically and explicitly tell us there is no consensus for either title and that he threw up his hands and picked one. That was not done here. I would go back to chairperson and reopen/relist. Yeah chairperson is a crummy choice but chair (officer) has been rejected in the past as non-natural. We should always try and find a way out of using parentheses for our readers searching. And for all we know if editors put a list of choice preferences, it might go back to "chairperson" or even "chairship." We don't know. It's what happened at the last RM... people felt strongly about chairman and chair (officer) and it fell on rarely used chairperson. That could easily happen again if we were asked to rank in order of preference chairman, chair (officer), chairperson, chairship. If left at chair (officer) with a relist, it must plainly be understood that it is a placeholder and holds no status in case another discussion comes up as no consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). I think the closure was reasonable. It's disappointing to see how many involved parties have shown up here just to reargue the move request. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). To restate, Chair (officer) is the best etymological fit to accept redirects and state lede bolds for the variations. It's a concept that transcends time but changed its clothes, so what. "~person" can be one of those redirects but this just isn't a good title. It's the iteration that nobody looks up. And "~person" is redundant isn't it, if followed by "officer"? JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) Clear consensus for move away from "chairperson". Leaving aside people who said that "chairMAN" was exactly as gender-neutral as "chairPERSON", there was a fairly clear consensus for the move as determined by the closer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). A clear case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS/WP:BARTENDER: the closer's rationale was an accurate summary of the discussion, where most wanted to move away from Chairperson; Chair (officer) and Chairman had equal support; and Chair (officer) had the least opposition. Given that the nomination itself only had Chairperson and Chairman, the level of support (or lack of opposition) for Chair (officer) probably would have been even greater. 123957a (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
In the discussion it was shown that "PhD" is more common than the full "Doctor of Philosophy", which is very rarely used. "PhD" was shown to be more than 60 times more common in google ngrams and more than twice as common in google scholar, with the caveat that most of the results for the full name were actual PhD dissertations, so the actual results are probably higher in favour of the abbreviation. WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACROTITLE were the main arguments supporting the move. The opposing arguments were quite weak and easily refuted:
Appeals to WP:ACRONYMTITLE, which simply delegates to COMMONNAME and actually supports the move.
Appeals to WP:CONSISTENT, which ignore all other WP:CRITERIA and the article PhD-MBA.
Comment unconceivable that anyone can look at that discussion and conclude there is a consensus to move. Note one of the support !votes comes from an WP:SPA. I stand by my close as an accurate summary of the prevailing opinion Consensus to keep the full name for consistency with similar articles and that PhD is not a universal abbreviation of the term. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by universal? I am not claiming the abbreviation is used 100% of the time, but neither is the full name, which is used even less. There is no policy that says an abbreviation can only be used in the title if it is used 100% of the time. Vpab15 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is an absolute consensus in that discussion to not move the page, and those opposing were cited in policy. Please don't bludgeon my !vote here, either. This one is very simple. SportingFlyerT·C16:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Terrible nomination. Once you say ... 18k results since 2010 ..., compared to less than 17k for "Ph.D." ... and less than 8k for "Doctor of Philosophy". You can't cite WP:COMMONNAME anymore. Weak argument, strong opposition, burden to move not met.—Alalch E.22:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). While closing isn't a vote count, there were more than twice as many editors opposing the move than supporting it, and the hefty badgering of opposers did not convince anyone to change their mind. It does not help that Vpab15 seems intent on ignoring or disregarding my opinion, which I find both well-reasoned and relevant, thank you very much. Toadspike[Talk]14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Terence Trent D'Arby – Endorsed. Consensus the closure was correct based on the evidence provided in the move discussion. Nom or any other editor is free to start a new move request, as long as evidence is provided that reliable sources use the new name, per WP:NAMECHANGES. Vpab15 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I participated in this move request which was regarding a musician's name change some 30 years ago, essentially attempting to get Wikipedia to align with all reliable independent sources. Although a consensus was reached and the RM closed on that basis, the discussion did not touch upon the WP:CHANGEDNAME guidelines at all which are highly pertinent in this case, so it is my view that the RM was closed prematurely and an incorrect conclusion reached.
A further attempt to engage in discussion focusing purely on Wikipedia article naming guidelines was shut down.
It is proving very challenging to improve the quality of Wikipedia in good faith when faced with editors who refuse to thoroughly discuss the topic at hand in relation to Wikipedia guidance around name changes, or worse still decide to impose their own standards which do not necessarily align to Wikipedia's guidance. There are several examples of untruths peppered through the brief discussion, the editors involved are a little under-informed both on the Wikipedia guidance on this topic and also the fact that all reliable independent sources available refer routinely to the artist under his newer name.
As I pointed out in a subsequent RM a few weeks later, according to WP:CHANGEDNAME we must give extra weight to reliable sources which routinely use the subjects newer name (post name-change). It is my observation that ALL reliable sources available adhere to that requirement, and I have provided many examples of this. Therefore, Wikipedia editors have unfortunately failed to reach a correct conclusion in this instance and it merits further discussion specifically around naming guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CHANGEDNAME.
Of course, despite best efforts sometimes rapid consensus and groupthink can at times produce erroneous results which are not well-aligned with Wikipedia guidelines; the question is how we should repond to such failures to adhere to our own standards. It seems a great shame to shut down further discussion on this, I would propose a rethink. The page should be renamed, it is anachronistic in the extreme that we have refused to engage properly with this issue. MzK11 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what to recommend here, to be honest. The initial move rationale did not refer to any of our policies, everyone opposing missed WP:CHANGEDNAME in favour of WP:COMMONNAME which is an easy mistake to make, and the person supporting sort of got it right. It does appear WP:CHANGEDNAME is the correct policy here, but there was little to no discussion of that in the move request. My own searches show that the new name is predominant in media, with only a couple instances where the old name predominates, for instance a caption of a photo from the 1980s. Most sources reference the old name, some do not at all. But that is not really a discussion for a move review - it's a discussion for another move request. SportingFlyerT·C16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I accept that I failed to persuade others on my first attempt, didn't expect it to be closed down so soon and I didn't expect my second (better-prepared) attempt to be closed down without any discussion. As you point out I am new and lacked familiarity with the processes. I have zero connection to the subject, just a music fan who wanted to improve the quality of these pages (particularly errors on discography page etc) in a variety of ways but was immediately struck by the title of the page being somewhat anachronistic / out of sync compared to all other major sources. MzK11 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry I misunderstood the meaning of "endorse" (confusing!). Well, that's disappointing but I appreciate your response. The lesson I have been taught today is that it isn't worth anyone's time to try and improve or edit info on Wikipedia. The velocity of edits is so slow, and there is so much resistance to a new contributor who is motivated, knowledgeable, and trying to steer us towards the right outcome. Remember, every new editor account on here once started with one edit or one proposal, and how that plays out shapes their future involvement to the site. Two month moratorium is a weak non-decision imho. MzK11 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a social endeavor and therefore has rules, for better and for worse. Jumping in with proposals like this before one has sufficient experience to know and appreciate the applicable rules is destined to disappoint. --В²C☎В²C☎05:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
7 October attacks – Relisted. There is a fairly clear consensus, through either "Relist" or "Overturn" !votes that the close as it stands is not an accurate representation of the discussion. Particularly so given that there seems to have been a misunderstanding by the closer over the !vote of IJA at the discussion. As an aside, given that this has been discussed in several RMs before, with prior consensuses being against a move, I'd also have thought a very clear mandate / reasoned consensus for moving would be needed and it doesn't seem like a suitable page for invoking WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The recent request move was to change the article title from 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, not to 7 October attacks. The article has been unilaterally moved to a different title all together. There has been other notable attacks on the date 7 October in the region such as the 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid and the 2004 Sinai bombings, both of which occurred on the 7 October. That's why I supported a move to the title 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel as it was specific about which attack on the 7 October, and to differentiate it from other attacks in the region on the same date. This controversial move lacked consensus in the RM discussion. Another user (User:Makeandtoss) has also stated"I agree, this should be taken to move review, as in addition to lacking widespread consensus, this was closed by a non-admin, in contravention of WP:BADNAC. Most worryingly, the closer is involved in the topic area [1].... The close very clearly violates 3 out of 4 points outlined in WP:BADNAC: 1- involved editor 2- controversial move 3- little WP experience at 6,000 edits.". The mover stated "there was clear consensus to move away from the current title as the date was found to be an important part of the WP:COMMONNAME" but they have not proved that this shorter title is the common name in contrast with the more prevalently used longer version of the title. IJA (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist In all honesty, I don't think that was a bad close, and I might have made a similar close. However, if I had closed the same way, my close would have been based on the assumption that IJA's vote supported the shorter title, which is now clearly not the case. Given that there's not a crystal clear support to move, the move title isn't agreed upon, and relisting the discussion is likely to lead to a better consensus, I think a discretionary relist would be proper here. SportingFlyerT·C18:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @IJA: Can you explain why you believe the closer was involved here? I don't think a single edit six+ months ago is enough, and your points about BADNAC are irrelevant as WP:RMNAC is much more open to non admin closes. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RMNAC clearly leaves this for experienced editors. I wouldn't call having 6,000 edits experienced, certainly not in this topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (involved) I didn't want a date at all and !voted that way but now that we are where we are, I think it cannot be right that a title which described what the article was about has now been changed to a date, without even a year, which nobody (apart from Israelis) will recognize a year from now. At the very least the move should have been to that requested and I think that needs to be properly debated.Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved in the discussion) As mentioned earlier, the close goes against BADNAC in three ways. Also, there was not a strong enough consensus for this controversial change. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (uninvolved) The page wasn't moved to the target listed in the RM. It's not listed under BADNAC, as should be obvious that when closing an RM, it should be moved to the correct target when there is consensus. Support for the move was therefore for the target, not necessarily a move to another different target. This therefore comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. CNC (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (meaning either reclose or relist). And given that there seems to be consensus that this a WP:SUPERVOTE, I hope Extorc refrains from closing other discussions in this topic area. Given how controversial I-P topics are right now, we need truly uninvolved people to close these discussions.VR(Please ping on reply)05:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and revert move (involved). Heh? Why would one close a move request as "moved" but then move it to a different title? I (vaguely) supported this move in the discussion, but clearly opposed the new title assigned unilaterally by the closer (Especially when "Hamas-led attack on Israel" remains in the title). Toadspike[Talk]14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take no issue with the "moved to" phrasing, I was simply surprised, because I never realized "Hamas-led attack on Israel" was part of this debate. Upon re-reading the discussion, there may have been consensus for the current title of "7 October attacks", but I believe there should be/should have been a separate discussion about whether "Hamas-led" and "on Israel" are necessary as disambiguators. Toadspike[Talk]20:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Picking an alternative that doesn't clearly have consensus support is okay under WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, as long as closer has a reasonable explanation for their choice. We have that here. No way to know whether the closer's choice actually has consensus support without doing another RM, which is the appropriate response here, not MR and relisting. --В²C☎04:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mulling this one over precisely for this reason. The thing is... when it is a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, then the closer really should expressly invoke it to hopefully avoid a move review. I think that's why there are so many relist !votes here. You are once again correct in my humble opinion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there05:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Although WP:OTHEROPTIONS was not explicitly invoked, the closer did include "No prejudice against another discussion between the original proposed title and 7 October attacks." That implicitly invokes WP:OTHEROPTIONS, so a new RM would be the better way to go. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there05:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just file a new move request - I'm salty that this was brought to the humungous time sink that is WP:MRV. (I deliberately don't say "waste of time", but it certainly is a time sink!) You should have just proposed a new request like the closer said. You deserve a trout for making us all go through this.
That out of the way, the MRV is indeed filed, so it's too late for the best choice. Given that we're here, yes, relist seems logical. Maybe let's change no good options to explicitly bar no good option closes without relisting first. RedSlash07:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's change no good options to explicitly bar no good option closes without relisting first
Actually sounds like a very good idea; however, in this case and because of the "You should have just proposed a new request like the closer said," I still think this close was reasonable and in line with the closing instructions, iow, it should be endorsed along with the opening of a fresh RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there08:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse is fine as well, well said. I changed NOGOODOPTIONS, and you can go make further edits if you like or revert me! RedSlash00:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another editor reverted it, oh well, I don't know how much relisting helps as I've been brought to move review several times after I've very explicitly made such closes of relisted RMs. Mine were always endorsed just as this one should be. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: This suggestion was live for the minimum duration possible, and poorly attended. The previous RMs were, as I recall, longer and better attended. There was no rush to close, least of all to rush to close with a "no good options" result – if there were no good options after just 7 days, throw another log on. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe this was necessarily a bad non-admin closure. But my opinion has always been that controversial and potentially contentious discussions should always be closed by admins (see WP:NACPIT). NACPIT also says non-admins should avoiding discussions that are not clearly unambigous. This discussion, no matter how you look at it, was not a clear, unambiguous consensus. There was no reason this discussion couldn't have been left for an admin to close, especially considering the closer didn't have the technical ability to complete the move (which is actually a point listed at WP:BADNAC). In the future, I recommend the closer stays away from non-unambiguous requests like this one. CFA💬03:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
This move request was closed as "no consensus" where the lack of consensus is based on a faulty reading of WP:UE.
According to BilledMammal who closed as no consensus:
"Reviewing it again, I stand by my previous close. Editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight. "
This statement is incorrect as roughly half of the reliable sources used "Cymdeithas yr Iaith" without providing any translation and none used "Welsh Language Society" except as a translation the first time "Cymdeithas yr Iaith" was presented.
Overturn (uninvolved). Reading the discussion, it appears that oppose voters have a mistaken belief that WP:UE is a blanket ban on all foreign language titles. Sionk, the one opposer who appears to engage with the evidence laid out in any way, claims that an article that uses the Welsh name in its headline, and adds the translated name once, is evidence that the Welsh name is not in common usage. Mach6111:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). WP:ENGLISHTITLE states "If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état)." Nothing in there suggests we should not use a foreign term as a title if some sources provide a translation for that term along with the term itself. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I've notified BilledMammal (the closer) about this request and put the required notice on the article's talk page. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) BothWP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISHTITLE apply here as page moves are often balancing acts. While those supporting the move were slightly more numerous in number, those opposing were not incorrect in terms of their policy analysis, and their concerns could not be discounted, especially the concern, confirmed by those supporting, that the English name is listed next to the Welsh name in these articles. I would have closed this as a no consensus and would have moved only with a couple additional support !votes. SportingFlyerT·C17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: there are numerous RSs referenced in the move request which use Cymdeithas yr Iaith without providing any English translation. There are several which use Cymdeithas yr Iaith alongside alongside an English translation the first time the name is used. There are none which use Welsh Language Society on its own. Morwennol (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that’s new evidence that heavily supports the Oppose position. Thank you for taking the time to find that. —В²C☎00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I really have no preference for the outcome here. My reading of the discussion was simply that based on my reading of the discussion, both those supporting and those opposing made valid arguments, and consensus was not such that a move was clear. I don't think it needs to be re-opened - these "English or native language" discussions can be really difficult! SportingFlyerT·C05:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging those out. I think it's mentioned in this MR or the previous one that Welsh Language Society was commonly used in the past to refer to the organisation, and is more commonly used to refer to the organisation in a historical context. Whereas Cymdeithas yr Iaith is strongly preferred for the contemporary organisation.
When I was looking for stuff using WLS I applied a self-imposed criteria:
- Less than a decade old
- UK based rather than internationakl]
- Referring to the contemporary organisation rather than the org in a historical context
I think four of the ten sources meet that criteria - one is a letter, one is an English local paper and the other two are from the BBC but are 8 and 9 years old respectively, so at the upper range of my search. I'm not sure they tip the scales (though they are interesting data that ought to be included). Morwennol (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me as if - well, if this closes as no consensus or endorse, then the page is likely to be requested to be moved again in the future. And it seems to me that the problem for those like yourself supporting the move is that the org is notable enough to be continually referenced in media, but not so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name, because the vast majority of articles include "the Welsh Language Society" pretty much next to the Welsh language name as a proper noun. From a closer's perspective, if I closed this, that would make it difficult to down-weight those opposing the change. Urdd Gobaith Cymru, for instance, isn't described with a proper noun next to its name in the media. If there has been a shift towards just the Welsh name, and if there's another move request, you may have a better chance of being successful if you can show how the shift is occurring. SportingFlyerT·C03:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...but not so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name, ..." Why is that a problem? To meet the recognizability criteria there is no need to be "so notable that everyone in a target English language audience would recognise the name". The threshold is: "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." --В²C☎04:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was not talking about the Wikipedia rules there, but rather about how the articles I've reviewed on this topic have been generally written. SportingFlyerT·C05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved (uninvolved). Not only were opposers outnumbered, but none really addressed the nom’s main point: the Welsh name is the COMMONNAME based on usage in reliable English sources, You know, like the BBC. Closer apparently gave too much weight to opposer’s stating the undisputed fact that many translate the name. But that’s so those seeing the name for the first time understand what it means; that doesn’t make it the subject’s name. Though not explicitly mentioned in the RM, underlying the Support argument, and countering closer’s finding, is the Recognizability WP:CRITERIA standard: the name must be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject area. Until a short time ago I was not familiar with this subject area. But now that I am familiar, I recognize Cymdeithas yr Iaith as the name of this organization. There is no requirement to make any title recognizable to anyone unfamiliar with the topic, but that seems to be the goal the opposers (and closer) are trying to achieve. —В²C☎19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on significant new information presented by SportingFlyer above showing that Welsh Language Societyis commonly used solely, not merely as a translation of the Welsh name, in RS to refer to this organization. Those ten references clearly establish COMMONNAME per UE. It’s unfortunate that this was not raised in the original RM to counter the nom’s argument, but here we are. The emphasis on the English used only as a translation of the Welsh in that discussion, even by Opposers, was very misleading. The RM needs to be reopened, the new information presented, and all previous participants notified. —-В²C☎00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to moved IMO the arguments in favour of the move were better grounded in policy and one of the oppose !votes was a misunderstanding of policy (WP:UE) and should have been disregarded. Number5721:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved): as pointed out in the previous move discussions and here, WP:UE is not a blanket prohibition on non-English titles if their use is well-established. I think that bar was met, and I don't think the use of courtesy translations lowers them below the bar (for comparison, mention of the Taoiseach in English-language sources will often carry a courtesy translation of "Irish prime minister", but will thereon continue with "Taoiseach"; same applies for Cymdeithas). Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > This type of closure, no consensus, always takes a bit of boldness. There is no firm basis for overturning this closure. Based upon good arguments all around, there is no solid ground for any other than the no-consensus outcome. Relisted once already with plenty of participation and time to reach consensus if that had been possible, there is also no viable reason to reopen and relist. This was definitely a correct outcome, which I, too, would have used to conclude this RM. Good gutsy close!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there18:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Per SportingFlyer above, and per the closer's assessment when asked about this - "editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight. Further, given the recent consensus not to move the article, there is a slightly higher bar to be met to produce a different consensus - that result has to be taken into account." There seems no reason to discount the opposing arguments here, particularly for a fresh RM so soon after a previous one, and the bar for a consensus to move was not met. Based on the fresh evidence of other sources not using the Welsh, this is even more relevant. If anything, that leans the conversation even further towards not moving. — Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (very uninvolved). If new information was brought here, =/ that should be brought up in the next move request, not anachronistically applied to the close here.
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
X (social network) – No consensus, defaulting to relist. There is unanimous consensus among uninvolved editors that the closer's rationale was not sufficient, although two uninvolved here felt that the result should be upheld anyway. Some in the discussion felt that the discussion should be immediately re-closed with a "no consensus" result, but those voices were not strong enough in argument or number to create a consensus. By default, then, we relist pending another close. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The page was moved prematurely when there was no consensus from the discussion; there were 29 comments supporting the move and 20 opposing it. In the mover's talk page discussion, they said quote "In my opinion, WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense.", and also "From my observation, more people supported the move. Considering this, and acknowledging the series of previous failed attempts with Twitter, I found it acceptable". These two statements, in my view, show a lack of understanding of how move discussions are supposed to work (they made a choice that aligned with their own common sense rather than consensus, and they counted comments as votes). When asked for clarification, the closer stated "If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you", which shows an unwillingness to discuss their decision to move the page. In short, this page was moved way before consensus had been reached based on the personal "common sense" that a non-admin found "acceptable". Di (they-them) (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My decision is based on an independent, impartial analysis of the discussion, and that analysis supported the page move. I am not an attorney to give bulletproof answers; I respond with my reasoning, but I didn't know that whatever is told in good faith will be used against me. The rest is up to the review board to decide.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A regular issue with the move requests involving Twitter and now X (social network) appear to be stemming from having two options in the move requests themselves. If the Viacom (1952–2005) and Viacom (2005-2019) article titles are used as precedents for bypassing common name and having two articles as a compromise, the Twitter article should have parenthetical disambiguation. As it currently stands, there are two articles about one topic. It may have been more ideal to use multiple options and a preferential method for determining consensus. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) The closer was correct, and most of the opposition to the move was WP:VAGUEWAVES and/or lacking any clear policy explanation as why not to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Thus those votes were justifiably reduced in weight to form rough consensus. The passionate opinions about this article are exemplified by Di (they-them) (talk·contribs) first reverting the move before even reading that there had been a move discussion, then coming here seeking an overturn of the move after the move revert was restored. Next, indeed the position of The Education Auditor (talk·contribs) is also potentially correct. We have two issues to deal with here, one is the different corporate strategy post acquisition (generally the controversy relating to X's elimination of the content censorship team) as well as a change in name. The main issue we have on the article that is now resolved is the BLP issue of having the owner's name in the title, which attributes every bit of trivia to the company owner. WP:BLPRESTORE applies to adding Musk's name back to the article title. I am not opposed to other suggested names, but for now, the close and move was correct and we can examine improvements from here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Please WP:AGF. I do not have “passionate opinions” about this subject, I redirected the page because I thought that a mistake had been made. I saw that we had two page about the same website and, naturally, assumed that someone had duplicated the original page. It has nothing to do with my opinions on the page, the website, or anything else, and you insinuating that I’m making passionate or opinionated edits is quite insulting. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Two main arguments were used by a majority of those opposing the move. This included the fact that there may be continuity issues from having two articles about one company and the software itself being the same. I believe that the first issue can be easily resolved by moving Twitter to Twitter (2006-2023) similar to the aforementioned Viacom articles. The second argument is somewhat narrow as the company is more than just the software. It would be ideal to take opposing arguments into account and not treat Twitter as a separate entity. I have written this essay on why this is the most ideal compromise.𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The close was reasonable. A lot of the oppose comments take issue with the existence of the article without really getting into why the proposed name wouldn't work. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Edit: While I think closing the discussion as "moved" was reasonable, I don't necessarily agree with the stated explanation for the move. The consensus for the move seems pretty clear. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Relist (involved). It's worth noting this discussion was not about the common name of Twitter/X—the last RM on that closed weeks ago—it's about turning what was essentially a size split on recent Twitter/X history into an article that treats Twitter and X as logically distinct. I'm concerned by the closer refusing to clarify how they arrived at their conclusion. The discussion on their talk page indicates that they personally strongly believe X and Twitter to be independent entities, but they have been unwilling to indicate what evidence or comments in the original discussion brought them to that conclusion. I personally believe a policy-based close here would take heed of the fact that no one has provided sources indicating any evidence that there's a common logical distinction between X and Twitter besides the latter just being the new name under new ownership of the former; indeed, there is a plethora of sources indicating the two terms continue to be used interchangeably to refer to the same product both pre- and post-acquisition (e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). I tried to request specific clarity on how the discussion was interpreted by the closer ([18]), and received a dismissive reply that implied the result was somehow obvious and the closer had no interest in explaining it to the ~20 editors who don't see it as obvious ([19]). I'm concerned enough that the closer is using supervote rationales instead of referring to any other commenter's arguments to call this a bad close and request relisting. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments here argue that this RM was exclusively about the common name of Twitter/X as separate platforms and that the articles were already distinct in their content. While I agree that an RM is an awkward (and perhaps wrong) venue to discuss the content scope of a separate but related article, I think it's incorrect to claim the RM wasn't about that when the closer, as part of their close, explicitly went and made changes to Twitter to convert it into being only about pre-acquisition Twitter ([20], [21]). The revision prior to the RM closure clearly shows that the Twitter article covered both pre- and post-acquisition ([22]). It seems inappropriate to dismiss oppose votes that discussed content forking issues or the lack of evidence that sources treat Twitter and X as distinct entities as out-of-scope when the RM is now being used to support a consensus for this. (Also, WP:CONTENTFORK is PAG, as is basing content on what reliable sources say, and I very much hope that "based in policy" is not being used as a shorthand for "uses lots of all caps project shortcut links"). Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)15:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a summary, Twitter under Elon Musk has always been about Twitter/X since the acquisition. It predominantly focused on Musk's involvement, but given he was CEO and dominant in his role, for a long time it covered all that X was developing into. Since he stepped down as CEO, the content continued to be added to that article, regardless of him no longer being CEO. More relevantly, very limited amount of content was ever added to the decaying (outdated to be polite) Twitter article, apart from to the lead which was merely a summary of the (grand)child article now known as X. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). It seems to me the support !votes were more numerous and had generally better arguments, including a BLP issue, and that there is no technical reason to not have two articles on the same organisation (though doing so is editorial, so I did not discount these when reviewing the close - but it is not a reason not to.) SportingFlyerT·C16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually read the closing statement but instead read the argument and closed based on how I would have closed and I got to the same result as the closer, but I have no problem if this is overturned because of the way the close was worded. I'm surprised people think this didn't reach a consensus, though. SportingFlyerT·C21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). Wait, what? WP:Commonname is generally acceptable, but sometimes it does not align with common sense. This being the WP:Commonname that is the core of WP:AT? The solution is not perfect. The correct approach would be to rename Twitter to X. However, that isn't happening, and keeping the name as Twitter is meaningless since the product is now called X, what? If you believe microblogging is the same as X, no answer from me is going to convince you.? This is not an acceptable close, the explanation given is contrary to the relevant policy and is not compelling why it should be ignored. The discussion should be reopened and the closers opinion should be left as a !vote. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved), per Alpha3031 - additionally, based on the comments quoted by Alpha3031, the closer appears to have strong opinions regarding what these articles should be titled, and probably shouldn’t have closed this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Reasonable close after carefully considered both support and oppose arguments, even if the closing statement was poorly written. Under a microscope, the oppose arguments were generally quite weak, and lacked policy or guidelines to back up the votes, whereas support relied predominantly upon common name arguments. For example referencing a false previous consensus that the article X (social media) shouldn't exist, concerns over confusion to readers, that Twitter/X are the same thing (although there has been more than one article about Twitter for a long time already), or otherwise that Twitter should have been moved to X (social media) - which is another moot point given there was no consensus to do so in previous RM. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this RM being closed, Twitter was an article about the platform known as both Twitter and X ([23]) and Twitter under Elon Musk was an article about Musk's acquisition ([24]); both of these revisions represent relatively stable versions of the respective articles. This has since been changed for both, initiated by the RM closer as an apparent implementation of the determined consensus. Either the RM isn't a valid source of consensus to make these changes or the arguments against them are in the right place; it can't be neither.
Many of the arguments you list are based in policy and guidelines, by the way. The concerns over confusion to readers are explicitly recognized in the article title criteria (specifically, oppose voters raised concerns with recognizability, naturalness, and consistency). The concerns with whether sources definitively indicate that Twitter/X are the same thing or not is fundamental enough I don't think I need to cite the various policies that get invoked (just in case: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:5P2). And while I'd generally agree that an RM is an awkward place to be arguing about content scoping policies, and this one in particular had murkiness in what was actually being discussed, the outcome can't involve changes to the content scope of both articles if the discussion precludes them. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter under Elon Musk (TUEM) was never an article about Musk's acquisition, maybe you're confusing the article with Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk? TUEM effectively developed into an article about Twitter since his acquisition, that was naturally inclusive of X. For example policy changes and development rarely featured in the Twitter article after the acquisition (partially based on article size). Thanks for referencing policy that other's failed to though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an article about a separate software platform before (I think you're correct in identifying it as a size split) and I'm not sure how else you'd describe the post-closure changes ([25]). The changes to Twitter are even more blatant ([26]). I'm not saying these changes shouldn't be made (I mean, I was saying that in the RM, but that's besides the point of this review), and I don't even particularly care what venue is used to get consensus on them as long as people are clearly informed of the discussion and its intent, but making an end-run around legitimate concerns by claiming the venue being used to justify the changes shouldn't be used to discuss them (or that comments aren't seasoned to your taste with project links) is frankly missing the forest for the trees. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk was split from twitter, and Twitter under Elon Musk was split from there. So yes it was a size split. I'm not interested in descriptions of post-closure changes, because this move review isn't about changes made to articles after the page was moved, that's completely irrelevant per MR. My issue was lack of citing policy (Wikipedia reasoning) for opposing such a move, as per the basic hierarchy of vote quality (reasoning backed by policy being higher than reasoning alone). A more experienced user wouldn't necessarily require policy citing for reasoning, but this is exactly why the vote quality increases when policy is cited, because you can't rely on an experienced editor to close an RM (case and point). I'm not arguing my vote was that good either, only that others were even worse. "Per user X, don't ping me again" was my favourite RfV based oppose for reference sake though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. < uninvolved > Above arguments for reopening and letting discussion continue are compelling. I don't think there was a firm consensus, and perhaps there was enough participation to warrant a close of "no consensus", but it wouldn't hurt to let editors continue what appears to be a talk that was still in progress – as yet unfinished. I think the RM should be given more time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there11:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. (involved) This close is patently ridiculous. There was a slim numerical majority in favour of the move, but not enough to establish a firm consensus. And it was not demonstrated at all that X and Twitter are different entities worthy of separate treatment. Indeed, the evidence presented would firmly establish that they're the same thing just under a new name, for which WP:NAMECHANGES would apply. There also appears to have been no critical analysis or explanation of the policy issues by the closer at all, and that close should be vacated and redone by an experienced closer. — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensusInvolved by virtue of previous discussion. Although I had supported the proposal in the previous RM on Talk:Twitter, this close lacks the necessary rationale that demonstrates an in depth analysis of the points raised in the discussion. The follow up discussion on the closer's talk page reinforced the perception of supervoting. Given that this is a contentious topic, a close from a more experienced editor will benefit the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) – Per Dylnuge, the close doesn't reflect that the issue was not merely whether the title was the common name but rather that the new title changes the article's scope and implies Twitter and X are separate entities. Graham (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (very much involved). In the originating move request to move Twitter to X, I urged that we keep Twitter pre-2023 at one page, and post-2023 (upon Musk's acquisition) to a separate page about X, using the existing "Twitter under Elon Musk" page as a starting point for that. That move request (Twitter->X) can be seen at Talk:Twitter#Requested move 17 May 2024, and while there there was no support for that move, there was reasonable support for my proposed idea. That said, when that move closed, I was going to take time to develop a somewhat involved mix of page moves and content splits across multiple pages related to Twitter to make that step clean (In this move request, you can see that discussion with Horse's Eye Back in some depth related to this). However, Elijahpepe jumped the gun and made this move request, in absence of the other steps I felt were needed. That said, given that this has been moved, it becomes clear that there was support for it across two different move requests, even if the consensus wasn't well in the move's favor. I can reargue why this distinction between Twitter and X makes logical sense across all WP content P&G, but this isn't the place to reargue those. I do wish there was a bit of breathing room before this move request, but it could also be seen as ripping the bandaid off as it was likely to be necessary some point in the future. --Masem (t) 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, or at the very least do not endorse (involved). The closer's explanation (or lack thereof) in the discussion, combined with their refusal to elaborate for the approximately 40% of voters who did not agree with the fundamental issue that led to this RM happening (whether Twitter and X are different entities), lead me to see this as a WP:BADNAC. Whether to relist (there was a decent amount of opinions cast, but also some active discussions), overturn to no consensus, or reclose with a better rationale as to why the move should happen, I'll leave that to the closer of this discussion; I chose relist just to do something. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relistInvolved by virtue of previous discussion.. I previously supported such a move but did not participate directly in this discussion. There might be a consensus to move but it's not a strong consensus and an obviously controversial move like this one deserves a clear closing rational from a user in good standing with the project which was not achieved here. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn (uninvolved). The RM discussion saw various arguments discussed in detail by participants on both sides of the debate, and – reviewing the close and the subsequent discussion on the closer's talk page – I'm not convinced that the closer has sufficiently analyzed those arguments. On their talk page, the closer expresses their personal belief that X and Twitter are meaningfully distinct platforms; this question was a major locus of debate in the RM, but the closer has refused to provide any analysis of that debate, of whether either side was more convincing than the other, etc. We are left with only their assertion that the difference between X and Twitter is too obvious to discuss. The closer also noted that supporters of the move hold the numerical majority, which is not a particularly compelling claim in a 29–20 discussion; clearly both sides had significant numerical strength, making it inappropriate to place much weight on raw numbers. On the whole, the close feels to me like a supervote hinged upon vote-counting.I note as well that several participants in the RM discussed the fact that the proposed change would involve a rescoping of the article, away from its previous focus on a period of the site's history and to a focus on the social media platform itself. The closer's only engagement with this question of scope was to state that I request fellow editors to make the necessary adjustments to restructure the document, including moving content from Twitter, to satisfy its new title. Instead of making any effort to analyze the discussion around article scope, or performing WP:POSTMOVE cleanup to reflect their change, the closer simply added an infobox to the article and did not make any other relevant changes I could identify. This further suggests to me that they were likely not fully engaging with the discussion as a whole. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I suggest an RfC(uninvolved) - This move is complicated. It involves more than a title change for one article: it involves a signficant scope change for two articles. I think more consideration is needed on the parent page.
From 17 May to 24 May, an RM that the article Twitter be renamed to X (social network) was held. It ended as "not moved" after a lot of discussion. Less than an hour after that RM was closed, the RM to move the spinoff Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) was opened.
However, this RM is more than a retitling. In effect, the move rescopes the main page Twitter from (A social media service named X, formerly named Twitter) into (A defunct social media service named Twitter, the distinct "predecessor" of X).
It turns the page Twitter under Elon Musk from (A WP:SIZESPLIT article covering the service over the last two years under its new ownership, at more length than the main page) into X (social network), (A new social media service created in 2023, the distinct "successor" of Twitter).
This is a major content fork. I believe it requires a clear consensus on the parent page (Twitter), rather than a shaky consensus (as others have discussed) on a spinoff page. I think holding an RfC would be wise. HenryMP02 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) I still believe that moving Twitter would've been the much better option than what transpired. Unfortunately there's been no consensus for that, time and time again. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) per HenryMP02 above. I find the closer’s response on their talk page to be quite poor as well. Mach6107:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). No disrespect to User:Anoopspeaks, but this one should probably not be a non-admin close. As User:HenryMP02 mentions above, this move essentially forces a split of the Twitter/X articles, and that should have been discussed better prior to this being nominated. 162 etc. (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) There is no evidence that the closer has followed the normal expected process in evaluating the consensus. I can find no evidence that the arguments were evaluated, and it is difficult for me to accept that such highly contested move could be closed as anything other than 'No consensus' unless the Oppose arguments were utter and incomprehensible waffle, which they were not. Melmann11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (involved). The closer clearly has a strong opinion on the result and has been unable to explain their vote besides asserting that it's obviously the correct one, despite it going directly against a better attended RM on the parent article mere days before this RM was opened that was unable to find consensus on a common name. These articles should be handled in parallel and after a well-planned RFC instead of haphazard RMs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (which means move it back and re-open for someone else to close). While I agree with the closer's decision, the lack of explanation in the RM itself, and especially afterward, is simply unacceptable. Pro tip: if you can't coherently summarize the policy-based reasons for the move based on the discussion for posterity, don't close. Some of the reasons provided in the post-close discussion on the closer's talk page, and here, are concerning. I fully agree with Amakuru here: "There also appears to have been no critical analysis or explanation of the policy issues by the closer at all, and that close should be vacated and redone by an experienced closer." --В²C☎01:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or remand to further discussion: when I closed the Twitter RM last month, I did so with the expectation we would not be rushing into another RM, but instead we'd have a cycle of informal discussion leading to an RfC and then maybe an RM. I'm slightly miffed that didn't happen, but I understand it. The RM itself clearly didn't have a consensus anyway. Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have previously !voted above to endorse (please dont double count me here), however as my primary concern is the BLP issues so I thought I would expand on that. I would note that we do have an article that cover's Musk's primary involvement in Twitter, which is Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. This article could be expanded a bit to include the first time period when Musk was CEO. I think it does already cover some of his early actions as CEO and certainly the events leading up to the acquisition. So we have essentially three eras:
Era #3: Post-Musk Purchase and after stepping down as CEO
My thought is that probably only Era #2 should contain Musk's name in the article title, or we run the risk of BLP issues. We should not be attributing the name of a social media network to be Musk going into infinity just since he owns it. We do have billionaires owning things like Washington Post (Bezos) and many billionaires own a sports franchise or some other bobble it seems, and we dont name those on wikipedia after the billionaire who owns it. We dont call those articles Ballmer's Clippers and Walton's Broncos. I think per WP:BLPRESTORE whatever action the closer of this chooses (it seems there is decent opposition to the current name) we should not be adding Musk's name back to the article title as part of this review unless we have a full referendum on that first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would be the BLP issue, though? It's not like the article is so inherently defamatory of Musk that his name should be removed from the title. As for other stuff, Twitter under Elon Musk was previously treated as a subpage of sorts of History of Twitter, so I don't think these comparisons apply. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)15:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Brainulator9's comment; I don't see how BLPRESTORE would apply here. Claims about Musk will exist in the article regardless of its title due to the degree that he was the public face of the acquisition of and changes to Twitter/X (and remains even after the CEO change, e.g.: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], this is just from last week). Musk was not mentioned in the title because he is a billionaire owner; he is mentioned in the title because his name is the common name associated with the acquisition in reliable sources. This is not the case for your other examples. There is no basis in policy for avoiding mention of living persons in titles where otherwise appropriate. We do not call our articles on US presidential administrations things like "46th Executive Administration of the United States", we call them Presidency of Joe Biden, even though of course not all events in a presidency are exclusively about the president.
This is a place to reassess the consensus closure of the RM, not relitigate the support comments. Part of the problem with this close is that while it is true that there were numerically more supports than opposes, when actually reading the comments we see vast and sometimes contradictory gulfs in rationales offered both by supporters and opposes. Only one other editor concurred with your BLP concerns, while another expressly disagreed, and the vast majority of comments in a discussion of nearly 50 editors made no mention of BLP issues. Frankly, I see no consensus in the original discussion that the original title presents any BLP concerns. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn the discussion was too close. Without having participated I can not say which way I would have stated my opinion but in my opinion the discussion had not run its course. With less than 60% in support there was not yet a consensus yet. Jorahm (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
This is a straightforward supervote, with the closer deciding several things. The first being that "massacre" is non-neutral, and that the other pages within the same category of pages with the title "massacre" are not relevant. The close explicitly endorses maintaining systemic bias by refusing to engage with the fact that events that are titled "massacre" related to the ongong war in Gaza are not relevant to whether or not this event should so titled. A substantial majority of editors disagreed with the proposal and further disagreed with the claim that "massacre" is POV or that the other articles in the same category of pages are not relevant. That was ignored by a straightforward supervote. If the closer felt that their view was that this should be moved they should have voted instead of imposing their view over the consensus of editors opposed to the move. nableezy - 21:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). WP:NCENPOV is clear that "massacre" is a POV term that should only be used if it is part of the common name or part of the generally accepted descriptor. Those supporting didn’t even attempt to argue that either was the case, just that this was the "right" descriptor based on their personal opinions. As such, the closer acted appropriately, assessing consensus not by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I would primarily reference the closing statement itself, which was well put and echoes the comment above by BilledMammal. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The vote tally was roughly equal, but this was a fairly straightforward discussion in terms of what the rule is regarding WP:COMMONNAME, and none of the oppose !votes could make the argument that their preferred article name was part of the WP:COMMONNAME and in one instance actually agreed with those supporting the move that the old title was not the WP:COMMONNAME. Good close, well within policy, clearly not a supervote. SportingFlyerT·C18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) per BilledMammal and WP:COMMONNAME. The oppose votes were entirely POV opinions as to what the incident should be called rather than what it is called in reliable sources. These were rightly given much less weight than those votes which cited Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) The opposing !votes didnt cite any policy for the most part and some made arguments such as "30 times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in this conflict" that are not relevant and the vote should be excluded from counting. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved): in discussions about page titles, ad hoc conformity to what sources use generally triumphs over attempts at applying logic to titling, as was the case here. Mach6118:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill just say here that there is a severe NPOV issue in the way these things are handled. At Talk:Nir_Oz_massacre#Requested_move_1_June_2024 currently underway, you see users making arguments that were rejected in this move request. Anybody care to wager my dollars to your donuts on how that move request is going to be closed? Anyway, consider this move review withdrawn, despite its incredibly inconsistent closure with respect to the other articles in this topic area. nableezy - 18:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
