Endorse same as my other analysis - even though the closer should have provided more information, and there were some minor issues with how it was closed, there's just really no other way to close this. SportingFlyerT·C04:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as I said in the other read, this was the correct reading of the consensus, and the OP needs to learn how to handle not getting his way more gracefully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The case for down casing was weak and clearly lacked consensus. Appears to be an appropriate interpretation of the discussion and if they had closed it in favor of moving I think we'd be seeing a much more interesting move review. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (involved) In addition to my comments in the MR below, which are also relevant here, I would observe that in this RM, there were only two arguments made that were based on the presentation of actual evidence and which used evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion to address the relevant P&G. Arguments that would assert that something is a proper noun but offer no actual evidence and do not address the P&G on how we determine what is capitalised are unsubstantiated opinion. Arguments based on official usage are contrary to P&G telling us to use independent sources - a point made in the RM but which should also be evident to a closer familiar with the prevailing P&G. Per WP:RMCI and WP:DISCARD all such arguments should be discarded and/or given little weight as being unsubstantiated or clearly inconsistent with P&G. This was the Super Bowl before there was a Super Bowl and Oppose Dicklyon's decapitalization agenda, are clearly irrelevant to determining consensus, as are almost all of the other comments (yes, we could go through them all if you want). After discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue, there are only two arguments of any substance - both of which support the move. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closer understood what I meant: "This was the Super Bowl before there was a Super Bowl". The n-grams for "NFL Championship Game" peak overwhelmingly in the 1960s before the Super Bowl was created, and stay vast majority uppercased for 30 years. The name became a proper noun during that period, which reverts to the 1933 game encyclopedically. The close simply recognized the name as a proper noun, which correctly summarized the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I must have forgotten to install the mind reading script. The term NFL Championship Game peaks in 1986 but drops below NFL championship game in 1993, thereafter having similar usage. (see here - not the context related ngram presented by the nom in the RM). I don't know what sort of shit your smoking but if there isn't enough to share with everybody ... Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer reach such a conclusion from an argument that wasn't articulated and evidence that wasn't presented, we have an unquestionable SUPERVOTE. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has explained their close, I'm just presenting evidence that further backs up the close as being correct per MOS:SPORTSCAPS. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's reasons, added late, are not very related to the discussion. Three main points made are not supported in the discussion:
1. that Gonzo fan2007's interpretation is the correct one (nobody supported that in the discussion);
2. that these "are more often capitalised than not" (a key matter of the discussion, clearly not a simple fact, and clearly false in some cases);
3. that the championship game names are trademarked (nobody made such a claim, and it's not true as far as I can tell).
A proper close would have mentioned and substatially downweighted the claims based only in "official" usage, and would have discounted the content-free oppose votes by O.N.R, and by Randy Kryn on the 1933 case, and would have discounted the claims of "Clear proper noun" and "Clear and obvious proper name" presented without evidence or reference to guidelines about how such things are evaluated.
I could understand a "no consensus" close (and closer admits sometimes the consensus just isn't there, but given the thin participation (with 4–6 and 3–7 !votes), a relisting would have been much more sensible. I recommend overturn and relist.
Also WP:RMCI says in the nutshell that "If you are not an administrator you should be cautious when closing contentious requests;" obviously admins should also be cautious, but this closer's simple unexplained (until after I asked) "not moved" was anything but cautious, and the topic is clearly contentious. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I completely understand the frustration with the close - the topic is contentious, no closing statement was provided at first, there's a clear inconsistency between WP:SPORTCAPS and WP:MOSCAPS. However, I'm just not sure there's any other way to close this, as consensus is that it's a proper noun, and quickly playing with different n-grams options (I removed "the" out of curiosity) shows there's not an airtight case to ignore the opposers. SportingFlyerT·C04:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Tony has completely changed his comment without "showing his work". A five-yard penalty and loss of down. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved), since the n-grams show this is a proper noun and, as the closer importantly said, a title which is trademarked (which in addition to common name and n-gram data, makes the proper noun legally "proper"). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was a correct reading of the consensus, and I might add that some of us are getting fed up with the OP's inability to accept it when he does not get his way on MOS matters. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure – there's no way given the direction of the discussion that I could close it any other way. Sometimes consensus is just against you, as it is here, and these MRVs (which, tbh, I suggest should be merged as they're functionally the same) are just silly. I'd suggest OP really should relax and not take stuff so seriously, but I wouldn't be the first or even the hundredth to suggest it… Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (involved) When the closer did provide a rationale for their decision, the reasons given in no way reflected the discussion (per the three points given by the OP). The close is therefore not consistent with WP:RMCIDC. SportingFlyer here (and in the other RM being discussed) would claim an inconsistency between MOS:CAPS and MOS:SPORTCAPS (they actually linked here to WP:SPORTCAPS, which is an RfC about and the names of traditional games and sports, with a conclusion not to cap). SPORTSCAPS is a part of MOS:CAPS. As I said in the other RM, the wording at SPORTSCAPS is a close paraphrase of the general guidance given by MOS:CAPS. As such, it is the spirit and intent that must be considered and upheld. The assertion by Gonzo fan2007 in the RM of a lower bar was challenged on the basis of the spirit and intent and no response was made that would substantiate their view. It would be a marginal view that a 4-6 WP:VOTE is consensus against and there are clearly votes from opposers that should either be WP:DISCARDED and/or given little weight (per the OP here). There are WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Furthermore, there is a very strong evidence and P&G based case for an alternative from the proposal that would either remove or lowercase game. A sound close should address this but it isn't. Consequently, the close should be vacated. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion proved beyond any doubt that the English-language common name in reliable sources is "Prince Ernst August of Hanover". Multiple sources were provided, while no English-language sources were provided for the German name now used as the article title. The closer selected the German-language name on the basis that "a majority of reliable sources do not use the title" and that the naming convention "doesn't favor English sources". Firstly, it was not shown in the discussion that "a majority of reliable sources do not use the title". Secondly, even if it could be shown that the majority of non-English sources use the German name, the naming convention is not meant to be read as if English-language sources are less relevant than other language sources. English-language sources take precedence. The guideline states: "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English" and "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, follow the general article titling policy". Thirdly, even if the guideline does mean reliable sources in all languages, the article-titling policy favours English-language sources, and it takes precedence over the naming convention. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment: This RM comes down to whether we should consider all sources or just English sources for this individual. Based on the referenced aspect of the guideline - Hypothetical, dissolved and defunct titles - we should consider all sources, and as such those supporting the move, who conducted a more systematic source review and based it on all sources, had the stronger argument.
In this move review Celia Homeford tries to argue that a different aspect of the guideline is controlling - Other cases - but this wasn't an argument raised during the RM, and the move review is not the place to raise new arguments. BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (uninvolved) BADNAC. Nonadmins do not get the privilege to call a "rough consensus". That privilege/responsibility comes with adminship. A rough consensus is not a true consensus, but is a partially arbitrary choice driven by the need to move on. Non admins should never be arbitrarily shutting down a discussion due to their perception that the discussion is a waste of time.
I also note, WP:COMMONNAME is capital P Policy, and there were many !votes citing COMMONNAME, but no reference analysis to substantiate the claim. Too few (only one) of the support !voters mentioned COMMONNAME. User:Theoreticalmawi's !vote deserves discussion. Either more discussion is needed, or it is "no consensus" due to the participants talking past each other. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, my understanding is specific naming conventions take priority over it, per WP:CRITERIA which says When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced, and WP:ATEC, which says Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases, these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name ... When it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.
I think it is not so simple, but complicated. But that’s not my point.
My point is that it is for the participants, not the closer, to discuss and decide the interplay between the very highly respected broad COMMONNAME policy and the narrowly specific guidelines, and any recent RfCs as are prominent here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point, as articulated here, would be fantastic in the RM. It would challenge the “per COMMONNAME” !voters to address NCROY, and the “per NCROY” (& variations) to address COMMONNAME. In my ideals, you would revert your close due to the challenge to your close, and argue your perspective in the RM. Should the RM later be closed in alignment with your perspective, you should then enjoy your validation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't have a personal opinion on this RM. There's was a huge backlog of requested moves that needed closing, and this was one of many that I closed as I worked through that backlog.
However, I would be concerned if there is a belief that it is up for debate in every RM whether naming conventions are controlling for articles within their scope over the general guidance at WP:TITLE; it would invite local consensuses to ignore naming conventions that they disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I earnestly claim no opinion on the RM either. I further claim no inherent interest in whether the broad policy or the specific guideline holds precedence, except that you made your ruling on that decision ahead of the discussion. Obviously one of them can’t just be ignored, “local consensuses to ignore” is a ridiculous hyperbole, a Straw man. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). There was a clear consensus not to move and allowing WP:COMMONNAME to be ignored sets a terrible precedent, especially when the majority supported it. And particularly since the support votes and the nomination appear to be based pretty much purely on WP:POV anti-monarchist sentiments. We are guided by what reliable English-language sources call a person, not what German law calls them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Use common name in English-language reliable sources per policy and the naming convention. When zero English-language sources are provided for the German name and ten reliable sources are provided for the English-language name, then the arguments for the English-language name are stronger not the other way around. DrKay (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). The whole thing boils down to one simple question. Was the previous title his common name in English? The answer appears to be yes. Then all the other arguments are irrelevant. Keivan.fTalk20:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's absolutely nothing wrong with that close - it's a user who is experienced in closing move discussions, and all of the options were available to them as this wasn't an AfD, so BADNAC doesn't apply here - most move discussions are closed by non-admins. All of the !overturns above are involved, but the closer clearly understood and correctly applied policy, as COMMONNAME does not necessarily stand alone here. SportingFlyerT·C23:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course involved editors may voice their opinion. I believe the closer of this discussion correctly applied WP:CRITERIA, which demonstrates that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criteria for the correct page for the article, especially WP:CONSISTENCY, which was specifically brought up in the discussion, and the naming convention which states non-monarchs should generally not have titles per WP:ATEC. Good close. SportingFlyerT·C04:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recognisability is the primary criterion for article names. A name that is unknown in the English-speaking world is not meeting that criterion. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency does not matter between siblings - it matters between other articles on similar topics, namely non-monarchs of former royal families, and implies the siblings are also potentially at incorrect titles. SportingFlyerT·C18:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not "potentially at incorrect titles". The titles for those pages were decided upon recently at a separate RM which actually adhered to our WP:COMMONNAME policy. The titles of pages about "non-monarchs of former royal families" are not necessarily relevant; they could equally be at wrong titles unless they have each been examined individually against English-language sources. Additionally, for all I could know this person could have been commonly known as "Ernst August, Prince of Mars" and if that was his common recognizable name then the page should have been at that title. Keivan.fTalk03:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Good close, reasonable and in accordance with WP:RMCI. Policies do not override guidelines just because they're policies and therefore always stronger and more important. In this instance, the closer makes the case for naming convention-type guidelines to also be held in high esteem. So I endorse this closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there05:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This endorse is utterly absurd. The naming convention says use the common name in English-language reliable sources. "Prince Ernst August of Hanover" is the only name in English-language reliable sources. Therefore it is supported by the naming convention as well as the policy. Also see Wikipedia:policies and guidelines#Conflicts between advice pages: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." Celia Homeford (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this response. Subtle insults rarely work when delivered in text. As I said, the specific naming convention says "use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English" and "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, follow the general article titling policy". That is why invoking the specific naming convention for the reason for the move does not make sense. The naming convention says don't move the article. It says keep it at the common name in English. It says use the article titling policy for suppressed titles. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies as I had nor have no intent to be cryptic. Sorry, I guess I'm just not used to having my endorsements called "utterly absurd". It appears that everything that needs to be said has already been said, and we are not in agreement on the issue, which is unfortunate but not the end of the world. Best to you, and thank you very much for your responses!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there20:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that you do not intend your insults to be cryptic; "utterly absurd" is merely a synonym for "illogical". As I said, it makes no sense to invoke the naming convention when the naming convention is consistent with and supports the use of common name in English-language reliable sources for nobility whose titles have been suppressed. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved) - as a majority of editors opposed the proposed page move & English language sources take precedence, as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus <uninvolved> The most natural reading of "reliable sources" in NCROY is that it's just shorthand for the usual requirement of "independent, reliable, English-language sources". The closure takes an overly literal interpretation of NCROY; unless there's evidence that consensus supported carving out an WP:ATEC-style exception from COMMONNAME, we shouldn't default to seeing a contradiction where none was likely intended. (I note that this edit has gone unreverted.) The stable title in my view is the one with "Prince", so the article should be moved back there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering. For stability, it's a bit of an edge case (cf. the musings at WP:SVTRT), but the article used "Prince" consistently for something like 17 years through two RMs, so I don't think the fact that the undiscussed move wasn't reverted for seven months or so is enough to create a new stable title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite around 40 very high quality sources being provided to prove that "Great March of Return" was indeed the WP:COMMONNAME, the request was closed as no consensus due to some opposition that did not provide any guideline-based counteraguments.
The closer cited on their talk page that some opposers claimed that some of the sources using this name were cherrypicked; but this claim was refuted by the argument that these sources using "Great March of Return" were newer, which actually further aligns with WP:NPOVNAME that gives an exception for names "remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." Furthermore, they were only a tiny portion of the 40 RS provided.
This page move fully aligns with WP guidelines and has 40 very high quality sources supporting it as the common name; there is no reason for it to be rejected. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Involved] I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with this close which seems rather like a proforma vote count rather than engagement with the arguments made based on sourcing. The only issue was whether commonname should apply, to me a sourcing issue so I didn't really understand the close comment "...or which one is more neutral". The RM ran from 24 March to 3 May, a lot longer than normal and I think the close deserves a reconsideration, at the very least the close should be amended so as to issue an invitation to run the RM again, this time with the benefit of the full source analysis from the start. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The closer correctly noted that the evidence was found to be insufficient, due to it being cherrypicked rather than being a neutral review of articles about this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I was not a participant in the original move discussion, so I think that means I'm uninvolved (pardon the tone of reservation—I'm relatively new to following review discussions, having first encountered them in the Where Is Kate matter). While the closer acted in good faith, the assessment of the move discussion over-weighed the refuted "cherrypick" argument and did not appropriately attend to the guidance in WP:NPOVNAME about how strongly we consider more recent sources in choosing a name. I also think Selfstudier is right in describing the close as having ended up being like a proforma vote count, as in the user talk page discussion the closer seemed to consider the existence of opposition to the evidence of WP:COMMONNAME provided sufficient reason to discount said evidence rather than engaging the substance of reasons for favoring or opposing that evidence. This close decision warrants overturning. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, WP:BADNAC. NAC-ers closing highly contested close discussions is destructive to confidence in the RM process. Doing closes like this most definitely a net negative to the project. If closes like this are allowed, the door is open to any number of nonadmins to supervote their personal bias. Admins are vetted against this sort of bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has established that "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure" and yet you didn't give any other reason to overturn. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly contested close is reason.
It means the close is extremely prone to being supervoted.
More important is that the close appears arbitrary, and gives the impression that the first person along can close according to their own bias.
NACs are supposed to be helpful. If the close comes straight to MRV, it has not helped but has kicked the can along. Has the closer been vetted through RfA as being capable of making good calls in difficult circumstances? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, uninvolved. I would have closed this as no consensus. The participant count was about equal and both sides argued their side of the argument well enough. There's nothing wrong with a non-administrator close here, either. SportingFlyerT·C04:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). Regardless of whether the outcome is upheld, non-admin closures of RMs like this — close calls or likely to be controversial — waste everyone’s time and energy since they’re far more likely to end up right here at MR, and they erode confidence in the closure process. This is why we have the BADNAC guidance in the first place: to minimize these disruptions. If we blithely endorse them anyway then we’re saying the instruction doesn’t matter and we might as well just get rid of it, and then live with the fact that we'll all be back here way more often to deal with way more MRs just like this. Personally I’d rather not, which means pushing back on BADNACs when they occur, and sending this one back for a proper admin closure. ╠╣uw[talk]13:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC affirmed that we should not overturn a closure "if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin", and I agree with that. In this case, however, the problem is not simply NAC but the negative effects that comes with BADNACs, which are (as in MRs like this) pretty self-evident. ╠╣uw[talk]00:15, 24 May 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.
At first the discussion was closed as No Cosensus,[1] (24 April 2024)
After a protest from the pro-move side on 26 April 2024, the closer returned on 30 April 2024, reopened the closed discussion and switched the result to move [2] and performed the move.
Original participants were not notified the closer had reopened and changed the result of the discussion or given an opportunity to respond to the reopened discussion.
After the switch, they posted indicating they performed the move and stated the discussion was closed (irony) to further discussion, referred discussion to here.
Closing a discussion, then reopening it days later to change the result in inappropriate. They did this without notifying the participants and giving them a chance to participate in the new/reopened discussion. Then stating the matter is closed to further discussion is inappropriate after they reopened the discussion to change the result. See [3]. // Timothy :: talk04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Overturn and restore original page names. per WP:BADNAC, a non-admin closure is not appropriate for moves in which the outcome either is close or is likely to be controversial. The discussion showed the move did not have consensus. The way the discussion was closed as no consensus and then reopened and the result changed (without notifying the original participants so they could participate in the reopened discussion) is inappropriate. // Timothy :: talk04:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (involved). Attempting to close controversial and highly divided RMs is precisely what WP:BADNAC instructs non-admins not to do, and this contentious RM certainly qualifies. I assume the closer in this case was trying to be helpful (even though they were made aware of BADNAC in an earlier close and still chose to do the same thing here), but a non-admin closing the same RM twice in two completely opposite ways is unhelpful and has the result of leaving no confidence whatsoever in the outcome. The closer seems to recognize this, suggesting the "flipping" was messy and likely to make participants unhappy, but they refused to consider resolving it through discussion, instead directing people straight to MR. The RM should be reopened so that it can be properly addressed by admin. ╠╣uw[talk]10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the closer’s statement in this MR that they had no intention of inviting discussion on the flip, and that others’ participation “would not have been helpful and was not wanted” (!) seems extremely problematic.
It’s worth re-iterating that no one (admin or non) should be flipping the results of closed RMs without re-opening and allowing input from participants. Regardless of the NAC issue, the way this was handled seems pretty blatantly wrong, as is the fact that the flip was apparently made on the basis of talk-page lobbying by a single involved individual. ╠╣uw[talk]14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The discussion was never re-opened. The closer’s decision was simply changed after oversights were pointed out in their original close. What needs to be evaluated here is the final close, which found in favor of community consensus over local consensus based on how well arguments were based in policy. I applaud Compassionate727 for recognizing their responsibility for “evaluating [participants’] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.” per WP:RMCIDC which stems from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In both the original and revised closing they referred to how “weighty” the arguments were, and how they evaluated that. This is an exemplary closing, actually, which has made my list of Great RM decisions. Bravo!!! Well done!!! —В²C☎17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, here we are again. I think I've already said enough about why I closed it the way I did, but I perhaps need to say something about my decision to revise my close. I made a mistake weighing the arguments the first time I closed this discussion; Born2cycle brought this concern to my attention on my talk page, as instructions at WP:MR stipulate he should do. I honestly did not want to substantially revise my close because of the drama it would cause, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it was to me that I would have closed it the other way had I not made this mistake and that I needed to take responsibility for that. I therefore revised my close, which is not particularly unusual, even if the effects of doing so are not usually so dramatic; it was never my intention to "reopen" the discussion, as more participation would not have been helpful and was not wanted. I did consider merely vacating my close and leaving it to someone else, but people have been loathe to close these monarch RMs and they seem to end up here at move review regardless, so I concluded that simply vacating would merely be wasting another closer's time and that I should just bite the bullet on this. I regret the disruption I have caused, and if consensus here is that I made things worse with this course of action, I will learn from that. —Compassionate727(T·C)21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) per Born2cycle, I don't know why the David III wasn't moved, if there was consensus it was ambiguous it should become a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity alone is no reason for a dab page, of course, since one of the uses of the ambiguous title may be the primary topic. David III needs to be reconsidered with respect to whether it has a PT. — В²C☎20:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the difference between these moves and say a no consensus AfD is that the moves were clearly done in consideration with our current policies and guidelines. A non-admin close here isn't clearly an issue, either, as non-admins can move pages, and wasn't a poor close. SportingFlyerT·C05:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). The current close is a fair reading of the discussion, and it appropriately weighs the arguments based on their grounding in policy. Re: the changing of the original close, I believe everything was appropriate in that respect as well. The challenge of the first close was because of the policy interpretation used in the closure (specifically, B2C contested Compassionate's reading of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY), and did not attempt to relitigate the underlying reasons for or against the move. It's normal for closers to sometimes change their minds in response to this sort of feedback (otherwise, there'd be no point in holding any discussion before jumping to MRV); admittedly it's less common for closers to change their close directly rather than reopen the discussion, but Compassionate's comment above provides a sensible rationale for that choice. Finally, the closer's non-admin status is irrelevant: WP:RMNAC advises non-admins to be cautious when closing contentious RMs, but emphasizes that it is nevertheless permissible. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case a single participant who disliked the original outcome of the RM directly lobbied the closer on their talk-page with arguments that no one else involved in the RM had a chance to discuss or respond to. Closing based on that was not just "less common" but bypassed how RMs are supposed to work.
Reopening the discussion based on such feedback would have been perfectly fine and consistent with our procedures... but unilaterally flipping the outcome based on a single participant’s talk-page lobbying (and without offering any opportunity for response or comment from anyone else) simply was not. Regardless of whether it ultimately concludes with retaining or moving, reopening seems necessary. ╠╣uw[talk]17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This close was simply unacceptable. As stated above "Reopening the discussion based on such feedback would have been perfectly fine and consistent with our procedures... but unilaterally flipping the outcome based on a single participant’s talk-page lobbying (and without offering any opportunity for response or comment from anyone else) simply was not." I'll note again the closer waited days after the close to change the result, after others had stopped watching because the discussion was closed (and probably are not aware of this review).
If this is sustained, what is the next level of appeal? Either way there needs to be a clear community consensus on is it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait, then reopen it and change the outcome and how long they can wait before reopening and changing the outcome. I do not think it is, but if the community consensus is that a closer can do this, it should be clear. // Timothy :: talk18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how this closes, I'm sure you can bring this up at the administrator's noticeboard, but I must note I don't really see the issue here. There was less than a week between the original close and the revised close, asking closers to self-review is a generally recommended part of the appeals process which implies that a closer can revisit their close within a reasonable timeframe, and as someone with absolutely no interest in the topic area, the updated close appears to have better applied the guideline. SportingFlyerT·C06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn largely per TimothyBlue. Changing the result of an already-closed discussion in this way, without the checks and balances of a centralised review location like this, and on the basis of the lobbying of one user is not something I can comfortably live with. This should not have been a NAC and, in my opinion, definitely shouldn't have been changed post-close in the manner in which it was. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that closers are allowed to return days after they have closed a discussion and change the outcome without any further discussion needs to be reviewed by the wider community. Aside from the original WP:BADNAC, this claim is a problem.
If the side opposing the close wanted to dispute the close, we have a process for review that is outlined in guidelines. You want a review of a move, come here and post. Simple as that. This is not what happened, instead an individual disregarded this process and disregarded the close notice not to modify the closed discussion and continued. Four days after the close they convinced the closer on their talk page[4] (not even in the move discussion) to change the outcome. So far we have:
Two individual then disregarded the closing notice and continued a (now one sided) discussion[5] that was marked not to be modified. When this didn't initially work, one started a another discussion on the closer's talk page.[6] (Problem #2)
A closer that returned four days later and reopened a closed discussion without notifying the participant (Problem #3)
Then changed the outcome of the "closed" discussion and then closed it off again to prevent further discussion (Problem #4)
There are four clear problems with the close in this situation. It needs to be clear this is not an acceptable way to close a discussion. This move needs to be vacated and reversed, a new discussion opened and a proper close made after the discussion has run it's course. If this is sustained, then guidelines need to be changed to reflect this. // Timothy :: talk21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at #1 of WP:IMR: Before requesting a move review: please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page. Move review is a process that takes several days, sometimes weeks, to close. On the closer's talk page, you can probably resolve the matter much more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full, formal move review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer. To clarify: You absolutely MUST attempt to discuss the matter with the closer FIRST, and give them a few days to respond. This clearly states that discussing the close with the closer and allowing the closer to modify or explain the decision is the first step in the move review process, and notes that it can take several days. I understand you are frustrated with the way this has been closed, but I strongly believe you are trying to create a problem where one does not exist. SportingFlyerT·C22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: you are reading into the above, it never states that a closer can reopen, change the result, and then close the discussion without additional discussion. This issue here is larger than this single discussion. and regardless of how this discussion turns out (which should close this individual matter), an RfC needs to be created to clarify guidelines regarding reopening closed discussions and changing the outcome. // Timothy :: talk23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's always been a part of the process. "There could have been a mistake..." clearly implies the closer can change the result of a closed discussion. SportingFlyerT·C23:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does not say the close can change the result of the discussion. If there was a mistake, the closer could have reopened the discussion, stating their reason; no one would have had a problem with them doing this. The problem is when then continue with a second BADNAC. If the closer felt the need to reopen and change the result, it was clear that this meets BADNAC #2, but the closer disregarded this (a second time) and closed the discussion again.
This can be solved by vacating the second BADNAC, reopening the discussion, and after a reasonable period for renewed discussion, requesting a proper close. If the BADNAC close was the right outcome, a proper close should have the same result. // Timothy :: talk23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer: No one is saying that it's wrong to discuss a close with the closer, or that the closer can return to explain their decision. Those things are fine.
The problem (or rather the largest of several) is flipping the result of a closed RM without first re-opening it for discussion. Per our closing instructions, not even administrators are entitled to that; for example, an admin addressing a clearly improper move closure is instructed to "revert the closure and re-open the discussion."
The purpose of re-opening the RM is to give all the other participants in the discussion the opportunity to address and debate whatever points, concerns, or challenges are being raised. Unilaterally performing an un-discussed flip of the result deprives participants of that opportunity and is inappropriate. More specific to this case, the flip was the result of direct talk-page lobbying by a single involved individual, and the closer's comment above that "more participation would not have been helpful and was not wanted" adds to the concern. (B2C was the only one who's participation was "wanted"?)
As such, I share TimothyBlue's concern, since this practice certainly doesn't seem to be one that should be endorsed or legitimized. ╠╣uw[talk]10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You or anyone else was just as welcome to request the closer to re-open after their reconsideration as I was to request them to reconsider their original close. You’re also welcome to take it to MR to evaluate the close. But the fact that a closer changed their mind and switched the outcome of the close is not in itself a reason to re-open. SportingFlyer is correct that “‘There could have been a mistake...’ clearly implies the closer can change the result of a closed discussion.” Of course it implies that. Just because they realize they made a mistake they have to re-open to allow someone else to close (and possibly make the same mistake)? That makes no sense. They had the ability to close with any result originally; why should they lose that ability when they’re re-closing to correct a mistake? Does it matter whether they recognized the mistake on their own or if someone brought their attention to it? Why? I think you and TimothyBlue are grasping at straws. —-В²C☎16:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a discussion be reopened for further consideration is not inappropriate. Coming back later to flip a closed RM to an entirely different outcome without reopening for discussion/consideration by the participants is. ╠╣uw[talk]17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment <uninvolved> There is nothing wrong with revising a closure. It's never been written down because this common practice has never been controversial before. Obviously it'd be a problem to change a closure deceptively or after a long period of time, but what's happening here is a closer giving genuine consideration to feedback, and that's something to celebrate rather than condemn. The closer's non-admin status is also not an issue; RM is much more tolerant than AfD of controversial NACs, and here "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure". No opinion on whether the closure itself was within discretion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). WP:AT is supposed to be a general principle that may not be suitable for every individual case, and when the participants judged WP:AT to not be suitable for this particular set of articles, the closer should take that into account and make the closure decision accordingly. Also, if someone on your talk page wanted you to change your closure outcome, the discussion should be re-opened for transparency: so that everyone can see what's going on and what may be influencing the closure. 123957a (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved in this discussion, involved in general debate): I have no opinion on whether or not these requested moves on the Tao monarchs were appropriately closed. However, I have noticed that not only on this discussion, but on multiple venues across Wikipedia, repetitive grievances against the current writing of WP:NCROY are being expressed that are out of place for such conversations. While it is natural to disagree with a guideline like WP:NCROY, continuing to bludgeon discussions all over the encyclopedia because you do not like the said guideline is unproductive and exhausting for everyone, regardless of your personal stance. (Redacted)AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved); closers are permitted to adjust their closes, and should be encouraged to do so when an issue is identified. The closes are also aligned with our PAG's and correct, even if some editors disagree with those PAG's - those editors should seek to change our guidelines, not ignore them. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved). No issues with users asking for a closure review, and no issues with the closer's changing his mind, but as per common sense at that point the non-admin closer should had simply vacated his closure and not flipping the result. If you are going to close a 6-2 discussion in favour of the two, then your closure becomes a textbook case of WP:BADNAC#2. --Cavarrone15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). WP:RMNAC encourages non-admins to make these closes and "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure" (emphasis in the original). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessintime:, your comment doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Was it meant to be for a different MRV? Even though a few commenters above do go into unnecessarily long opinings on BADNAC, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY said it should be overturned for "the mere reason the closer was not an admin", some have also said that EVEN IF the closer HAD been an admin such an action would STILL have been inappropriate. I think you should perhaps take a closer look, because your comment is arguing against something that was never said. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (reluctantly) (uninvolved). The instructions above ask editors to seek a resolution with the closing editor first. Clearly, one possible resolution is a change to the closer's decision and therefore this is within policy. However, imo, a better course for the closer would have been to undo their close, state the reasoning if necessary (the misinterpretation of policy in this case) and then leave it to some other editor to close it. Reluctant endorse. RegentsPark (comment) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) per voluminous discussion elsewhere. The whole point of move request discussions is to have a discussion. A closer shouldn't simply discard the results of the discussion - if we want to do that, we shouldn't have RM discussions at all and just have some bot apply standards. The article title pages are guidelines that are rough guides to the current consensus, not hardcore policies like copyright. If that consensus isn't shown in a well-attended discussion, it shouldn't move. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 23 May 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.
