2020 May

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Not only was there no clear consensus in favour of the move of multiple pages, it seems to me that the consensus was the other way. Had any of the arguments been clearly flawed, that might have been a reason for supporting one group or another, but all that I see in the closure is a comment to the effect that there was a wider variety of arguments against the move than for it. The closer even seems to have doubts about the desirability of the moves: see comment on my talk page: [1] I feel he is correct in saying that "It is not the role of CFD to be a battleground for a proxy war regarding ENGVAR disputes", and yet that is exactly what has happened and has effectively been endorsed by the closers' action. I would agree with him that the discussion became very acrimonious and was difficult to read, and I'm sure that the domination of the discussion by the nominator (with an astonishing 124 edits) was not a factor in a good-faith decision. Nevertheless, I request a review. Deb (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intended contributing more to the discussion but gave up on that idea because of the domination by the nominator, which wasn't helped by this bit of wikistalking. I welcome Deb's request for review and I'm sure other members of the TV project will as well because endorsement of the close will create significant confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pity that the AussieLegend didn't post in the usual chronological order, and reverted my move of their post to chronological order. That is made worse by AussieLegend's abuse of MR to make a thoroughly bogus allegation of "stalking". Reverting a single bad edit by AussieLegend is in no sense WP:HOUNDING, and placing that bogus allegation at the top of the discussion is a nasty gambit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that BrownHairedGirl is now attempting to dominate this discussion. My post was made as a direct response to Deb, not to BHG but this edit moved my post so that it appeared to be a response to BHG, which it most certainly was not. BHG denies stalking but the article in question has existed since 2013 and BHG has never edited the article previously. When she finally did so, it was coincidentally only 28 minutes after I did. My edit was not bad, it was tidying of the terminology used and was entirely appropriate for that TV series. BHG's revert was an edit that supported her POV. Now, can we get on with the review? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie, you made a bogus allegation, and then used the fact of that I replied as a pretext to claim that I am trying to dominate this discussion. That's a classic trolling or baiting tactic. Please stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of trolling when all I have done is reported what happened. I consider that to be a personal attack. You've made you own bogus claims, like saying that my edit to an article that you never edited until I did was bad, when it was not, and you've made more posts here than anyone else as well as moving my post so that it looked like I was replying to you. The discussion saw fit to mention you specifically in the close saying, "I want to specifically urge BHG to not give in to the need to comment on every single oppose with an inflammatory tone". You really should take that advice on board. Now, as I asked before, can we get on with the review? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Aussie. You did not just reported what happened. You made a bogus allegation of stalking, and then tried to manufacture a drama out of my reply. That is trolling, and if you want to claim that's a personal attack, take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please explain how you just happened to decide to revert an edit of mine at an article that you had never edited in the 7 years that the article has existed and how your summary just happened to support your POV at the category discussion. How often do you edit TV articles? It's all a little too suspicious and maybe it does need discussion at ANI. I still stand by my argument that you are trying to dominate this discussion. You've now made 7 edits here and have forced me to post far more than I would have liked to. Please don't reply to this. Concentrate on the review please. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A single revert of one bad edit of yours is not WP:HOUNDING. Your repeated, false allegations of stalking are unfounded and malicious, and amount to trolling.

Neither I nor anyone else has "forced" you to post here. Your repeated posts are simply your decision to persist in trolling by repetition of your bogus allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response did not in any way answer the question that was asked so I assume that you have no excuse or justification.

Your repeated posts are simply your decision to persist in trolling - Again, please cutout the personal attacks and the hypocrisy. No matter how many times I ask you to not reply and concentrate on the review you always have to have the last word. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie, the only hypocrisy here is your choice to repeat a bogus allegation of stalking, and claim that rebuttals amount to a personal attack. Go read WP:NPA, and stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, as nominator. This was an appalling discussion in which the opposers ignored policy, ignored evidence, and relied on unevidenced assertions and cherrypicked examples to support their case. Two editors in particular posted vast screeds of evidence-free objections, which should have had no place at all in the discussion; my point-by-point rebuttals of this verbiage added further to the overload.

The closers did an okayish job of weighing the discussion. They should have attached more weight to the policy and evidence in favour of the proposed rename, and explicitly discounted the verbose personal assertions; they should also have refrained from objecting to evidenced, reasoned replies to the unevidenced waffle. But fixing those flaws would have only strengthened their finding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for opening things up. I have to say that personally, I'm surprised that there wasn't more serious consideration about allowing this to be a situation where we allow program/programme to co-exist, similar to what we do with transport/transportation. But I can only work with what is there and weight according to the standards and guidelines regarding CFD. It's not about what I personally think or feel (which I'm glad you pointed out). I would think that it's probably best to step aside from this particular discussion and reopen a new one several months down the line where the different options are all listed out alphabetically (perhaps even including "series", "original programming", and so forth). It may well be that that's where things are headed. bibliomaniac15 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am saddened by that comment, especially by Bibliomaniac15's assertion that they were surprised that there wasn't more serious consideration about allowing this to be a situation where we allow program/programme to co-exist.
    That seems to be a dismissal of MOS:COMMONALITY, which I think is a very serious lapse of the closer's responsibility to weigh the discussion through the lens of policy .... but it does explain some of the failings I mentioned above. It also explains why Bibliomaniac15 suggests some sort of listing of options, as if this was some sort of vote unrelated to policy.
    In particular, Bibliomaniac15's comparison with transport/transportation is unwise, because no neutral, widely-used alternative is available in that case. Closers should weigh discussions against policy and evidence in reliable sources; they should not brush off policy and introduce their own preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I was involved and had my particular viewpoint, I feel like the closers did a good job and incorporated all the views which resulted in a consensus to standardize - a desire of which almost everyone agreed, even those wanting just to standardize somehow. I don't think Deb makes a prima facie case giving enough rationale to reverse this close. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and compliment the closer on a great reading of consensus, based in our policies. There is one and only one issue at stake--commonality in language, which is highly praised on Wikipedia. It's why we have an article in American English at grey, a rarer spelling for us Americans but one we do have in common with the Brits. God help us if we can't even get a completely clear policy applied in Wikipedia. Absolutely no one on any continent uses the word "program(me)", which is a ridiculous and untenable construct that spits in the face of our naming policies. (The reason we have these policies is because it helps avoid stupid, stupid fights like "do Argentines use American English?") I am not insulting any person, but wow, that was a ridonculously unnecessary debate. I am also uninvolved by the way. Red Slash 21:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stupid fights like "do Argentines use American English?", especially since officially we don't use any variaton of English. El Millo (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just as a clarification, the closure wasn't for/against "program(me)", it was between show/program/programme. That was just the nominator's way of being respectful of the spelling difference. bibliomaniac15 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and compliment the closers. It is refreshing to see a close which balances the arguments rather than merely counting heads. Oculi (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and compliment the closers, in complete agreement with Oculi's comment. El Millo (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Obvious decision, really it is out of scope for CfD to entertain much of the discussion. Categories are not content, categories follow the content. Follow the parent article. The parent article is Television show. Television program and Television programme are redirects to it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Appreciation for @Bibliomaniac15: to wade into what was a challenging and surprisingly noncollegial discussion. I'll defer to other editors on the final result of the close. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deplore closure I didn't exactly cover myself in glory in my contributions in The Great TV Shows Debate. Why bother? From bitter experience I could see the end point which BHG was bound and determined to achieve, no matter what the cost (to her personal reputation and to Wiki as a concept). Knowing that she would go to any lengths to get her way, I saw that any serious attempt at intervening would be futile, hence my contributions were of a fatalistic, insouciant style. The one good thing that came out of the closure was the (very mild) censure of BHD and the sensible advice to not reply to every seeming insult or rebuff - advice that has been roundly ignored by her here already. That leopard can't change her spots, God love her. To the matter in hand: the correct decision ought to have been to have left everything alone and let the battle be fought over MOS:Commonality and EngVar in their forums. Only after achieving unity in the article space should amendments have been made to Category space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not overturn but continue on from closure's ending comments. The discussion was made hostile and uneasy to follow by a one specific editor which made editors, including myself, not want to participate, or even able to comment on all matters. The closure's ending comments said Our suggestion is that if there are future discussions down the line in this venue, they should list out all the different possibilities for consideration (perhaps using an option A, B, C... format), and that no such nominations be made (other than to pick up any potential omissions from this nomination) for two months from today., and the general closing consensus which he said was to standardize. I'd say that moving a huge amount of pages in short amount of time is disruptive, and that the followup discussion should happen now. No need for this to get messy and have endless comments on comments. Also, specifically for the group of categories noted by @Mvcg66b3r: they should follow Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American television series by network. --Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the discussion were to continue, I think we should first put all the evidence gathered forward, as concisely as possible and for all to see. We should also establish a baseline. Is standardization already consensus, or are we yet to agree on that as well? El Millo (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to your question, I guess it depends on this review. Just a note: I won't be available for at least 24 hours, so any comment/question to me is not that I'm ignoring, it's just that I'm not here. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If my count is correct I note that 9 editors of the 21 who participated in the discussion, including me, have already posted here with most supporting their POV from the discussion. Surprise, surprise, who'd a thunk it? Unlike the majority of those editors I am not going to do that although I do support Gonnym's proposal that we continue on from closure's ending comments. As a long time member of the TV project I can see that moving these categories is going to create some confusion, especially when news programs and many series will now be categorised as "shows" when they are more specifically program(me)s and series, the latter per WP:NCTV. Further discussion is needed to minimise this confusion and the need to re-categorise articles. I do endorse another part of the close, i.e. the entire paragraph dealing with lack of civility, especially by certain editors. That ruined the discussion and I am sure turned people away from contributing, as it did me. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AussieLegend: No distinction between "shows" and "programmes" was established in the CFD. As for series, if there's a hierarchy of series under shows/programmes/programming, by all means move relevant contents down into "series" categories. – Fayenatic London 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There might have been if BrownHairedGirl hadn't dominated the discussion. There were actually examples given, such as news programs, which are not "shows". Yes, articles can be moved, but it's a lot of work that is really unnecessary and all because one editor who doesn't edit TV articles likes "show". --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse closure. It should have been left as "no consensus". This is a controversial change that is going to result in confusion (as noted by User:AussieLegend). User:Bibliomaniac15: the discussion itself shows that User:BrownHairedGirl bombed it with WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:PEPPER, and WP:STICK. People don't want to subject themselves to such tactics, so I give credit to those who stood up to BHG. And there was an unmistakable WP:TAGTEAM at play, too: .1, .2, .3. (I don't expect anyone to admit to discussions with BHG taking place behind the scenes.) The main article was moved in 2017 from "program" to "show" on the opinion of 3 editors only. Considering the volume of editors involved in TV articles, a decision based on 2 support replies did not constitute a representation of TV editors. The renaming of categories "television program(me)s" to "television shows" is rooted in that poorly-attended article name move created by User:Netoholic on 28 November 2017. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since I was pinged, the validity of that RM seems to only come up when it suits people, such as these two 2018 discussions where I point out there was plenty of notice about the RM and opportunity at that time to weigh in. Likewise, in these years, no one has attempted to submit a new RM to their preferred term, so bringing the attendance level of that RM up is just WP:SOURGRAPES and in my view borderline tendentious. Accept prior consensus, or show a new consensus - but don't you dare imply anything is wrong with it just because it was "poorly-attended". Sometimes, very obvious RMs are poorly-attended exactly because no one can make a decent argument in opposition. Maybe you guys didn't see the RM at the time... or just maybe you saw it but couldn't express a reasonable counter-argument and chose not to participate. If there are so many TV editors as you claim, why else didn't they show up? -- Netoholic @ 13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "If there are so many TV editors as you claim, why else didn't they show up?" ... Because unlike editors who practice transparency, you did not announce the RM discussion in WikiProject Television, where a variety of editors interested in TV articles would have found out about it. I, for one, did not have the Main article on my watchlist, nor do I lurk WP:RM. But had it been announced in WP:TV, I would have known about the RM and opposed it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pyxis Solitary: - The WikiProject was notified via their Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts page (diff of notification), which is also transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Article alerts. That alerts page should be on your Watchlist, or checked frequently, if you're as keen to receive these kinds of notifications. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Or rather, I did not. I never look at the front page mess of WP:TV, and that's on me. I apologize for thinking that it had not been announced in the project. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people don't look at the alerts page. When listing an article it's always good practice to mention it on the project's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you aren't using the exact tool created to notify the WikiProject, I don't know what else to say. Looking at the length of that alerts page, it would be impractical to manually notify the project's talk page for every such listing. And historically that has not been the common practice. -- Netoholic @ 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Pyxis Solitary: Your comment I don't expect anyone to admit to discussions with BHG taking place behind the scenes is an unevidenced smear.
    In my 14 years on Wikipedia, I have held myself to a firm policy that discussions about Wiki content belong on wiki. The only exception I make to that is that I will discuss the personal aspects of disputes between editors by email. That rule has applied throughout this discussion; the only discussions I have had with other editors about these TV categories, or about the editors involved, have been on-wiki. Nobody has contacted me off-wiki about it, and I have contacted nobody else about it off-wiki. In the course of the discussion, I responded to comments on my talk by another editor; I did not initiate those discussions, and they are all open.
    Pyxis Solitary's complaint about Talk:Television show#Requested_move_28_November_2017 was made in the course of the discussion[2]. I replied a few hours later[3] debunking Pyxis Solitary's claims, and the following day I made a further reply[4] to yet more nonsnese from PS. In a nutshell, that discussion followed all the normal RM processes, and was notified in the TV article alerts.[5] The RM was been uncontested for the next two and a half years; no objections on the talk page of the article, no new RM. Any editor could have opened a new RM in that time, but nobody did.
    Pyxis Solitary claims that I bombed the discussion, but this exchange here illustrates some of the reasons why I replied a lot: to correct the gratuitous smears and assertions of falsehoods by Pyxis Solitary and other editors. I am utterly disgusted at the sustained contempt which PS and a few others have shown for policy, for evidence in reliable sources, and for fact ... and I am sadly unsurprised that even at this stage they are still trying smear tactics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an unmistakable WP:TAGTEAM at play"? TAGTEAM states: most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. @Pyxis Solitary: instead of making cheap, unevidenced accusations, why don't you discuss the topic, or the reasoning, or maybe provide some evidence in favor of your point of view? The reason the closers closed the discussion as they did is because all your arguments didn't hold up. El Millo (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sadly, just as I anticipated, all the supporters of the original proposal to move have come here repeating their original arguments, ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be a review of the closers' decision. Deb (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I do not see how this discussion could ever have been closed as "no consensus" while so little evidence was offered against the claim that show is used commonly in both British and American English. Also note that the discussion was in fact closed by a team of two administrators from both the UK and the US, who thus together did everything they could to avoid any particular bias. (Two disclosures. One, I also participated in the discussion. And two, English is not my native language and before an earlier wp discussion in the same area I wrongly presumed that "show" would be exclusively used in American English.) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really doesn't matter that "show" is used commonly. In Australia, "mt" and "mtr." are both commonly used as abbreviations for "metre", despite Australia changing to the metric system several decades ago, but that doesn't mean we're going to change the actual abbreviation from "m". What is important is that the TV project standardised on "series" as a disambiguator a long time ago and that has been confirmed after more recent discussions. We have used program and programme but "show" has never received support. With this move we now have a situation where "foreign" (to the TV project) terminology is being used to categorise programs that avoid that terminology in naming. It's introducing a ridiculous situation. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (I did not participate in the initial discussion). This is a clear-cut case of weighing the strength of the argument rather than simply counting votes. Those supporting the move in the original discussion provided convincing evidence to back their position, while those in opposition did not. Calidum 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The arguments for MOS:COMMONALITY are strong and the close gives proper weights to the arguments. PaleAqua (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule

Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This should have been either a not moved or no consensus close but closer did a super close and exceeded the scope as you can see from the closing comments. The close also confuses annexation and occupation and uses that to super-close this close and says we should have consensus from one article to this article. Jordan annexed the West Bank but it wasn't widely recognized, so that move was closed one way. However, from 1948-1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank including East Jerusalem. That has nothing to do with annexation. If you are going to say that from 1948-1967 Jordan didn't occupy the WB and EJ, then are you willing to edit all the WB articles where it says Israel is currently occupying the WB and EJ? If you say that Jerusalem is occupied by Israel, then wasn't it occupied by Jordan from 48-67? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closer: My role is closer was simply to answer the question "bickering aside, what is the most appropriate title for the article"? The key part of the close is the article titles policy on title consistency; one could also look at the "COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom" close I made a few days ago for how to close an RM without resorting to a simplistic vote-counting exercise.
  For this topic, there have been two discussions at Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank which both returned results that "occupation" wasn't appropriate for the title because it was seen to be not reflective of the entire period mentioned. On its own, I could see the reason for a "no consensus" result, but the idea of an isolated consensus island isn't what consensus is about in the first place.
  Also, for what it's worth, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a quagmire of circular bad-faith arguments, not only on Wikipedia, but in reality too, and while I have my own views on the matter, I have no desire to get bogged down in the political debate on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank. There are more than a handful of these articles, will you be moving them in accordance with the consensus?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Close There was a clear consensus not to move.The arguments by the opposes were legitimate and based on policy.The closer role was not choose "most appropriate title for the article" but to asses a consensus and that not what he did he instead he choose to cast a WP:SUPERVOTE as evident by his comment here --Shrike (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was the proposer of the move. In my view, it corresponds to Wikipedia practice and WP:RMCLOSE. The "vote count", to the extent that it applies here, was 3 in favor and 3 against (one of the latter having made no comment other than simply to say "oppose") and one other whose position was that it was a matter of fact. The close referred to recent existing consensus positions about the central issue elsewhere and noted that those supported the move. It seems inappropriate that the closer should be accused of "bias" on his talk page in these circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse According to sheer !vote count, it 'appears' as no consensus to move, but consensus is not a vote. Since there was a previous no consensus to move Jordanian annexation of the West Bank to occupation, the closer correctly extrapolated from there that there is no overall consensus on Wikipedia to label the Jordanian period an occupation, hence the move away from occupation to rule. As per the OP's equivalence arguments, while this is not the place to relitigate the wider conflict, there is a clear difference on the ground between the time an Arab power ruled over fellow Arabs than when Israeli Jews did the same. Havradim (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying that because Jordan is an Arab power, it was OK to violate the UN partition plan but the same can't be said for Israel? That seems to be hypocritical, and OR and SYNTH. It also shows the difference between annexation and occupation when no such extrapolation is warranted. But at least someone is open enough to admit the hypocrisy of why articles are biased, "when an Arab does something, it's OK.." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The plan wasn't 'violated' by Jordan. Arab governments rejected the plan. Then Israel captured their portion of the mandate plus territory meant for the Arab state, and Jordan, Egypt and Iraq captured the remainder. The international community recognised Israel proper but not Jerusalem, which was outside their mandate, as was Jordan in the West Bank; so Israel in West Jerusalem and Jordan in East Jerusalem were both unrecognised. But the only time the international community declared something as 'occupied territory' was Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Havradim (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unrecognized, why is Israel occupying Jerusalem then? If Jordan wasn't occupying EJ as you say because it was outside the mandate, and Israel captured it from Jordan, then it stands to follow that it's now still not being occupied being that Israel captured it from a power who was not occupying it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognised and occupied are two very different things. To say that Israel capturing from unrecognised Jordanian territory means they couldn't possibly be occupying is exactly original research when virtually the entire world calls it an occupation. Calling Jordan in '48 an occupier means calling Israel in '48 an occupier as well. Do you want there to be an article named Israeli occupation of West Jerusalem? This discussion is turning into a repeat of previous arguments when it should be focused on the merits of the technical close. Havradim (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic makes no sense. Was Jordan an occupier or not? It's as simple as that. As I pointed out up top, we already have an article, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, should we now change it to Israeli rule of the West Bank? You also just said in the above paragraph, that calling Jordan an occupier means calling Israel an occupier. Guess what? We do call Israel an occupier. That's the whole point in pointing out the hypocrisy. That's why this should be overturned. Thank you for realizing it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting into personal attack territory means I am out. Have a good night. Havradim (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I did not participate in the move request. The opposes were policy based (eg COMMONNAME); it wasn't for the closer to choose the most appropriate name, and certainly not by applying the consensus from a different move discussion to this move discussion. I see no consensus in this move discussion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 1. The comment of the closing editor was "I don't particularly see the comments in opposition to such a move are particularly persuasive to move away from the much larger consensus that "occupation" is desirable in articles titles regarding the topic." That sounds to me like the closing editor saw a consensus to keep the name with "occupation". 2. Based on the votes, there was no consensus for the move. 3. Per analog from other articles related to the IP-conflict that use "occupation". 4. The argument of the closing editor, that "occupation" was not used at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, is not a valid argument, since neither is "rule" used in that article name. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Is-Pal Collaboration, there is an open RFC initially about adding boilerplate to all West Bank village articles, namely "(WB village) came under Jordanian rule...." A second leg of this RFC has been established proposing that the word "rule" in this boilerplate ought to be replaced by "occupation".(!) And here is a comment from your good self there: "In any case, as said elsewhere by others, sources call it "rule"."Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed out a word from that closing statement, which should've been evident. I've fixed the closure now to fix that typo. Sceptre (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I did not participate, and I generally think that occupied and occupation are the correct terms for the period that Jordan held the West Bank, both from prior to and after the annexation. But our article on it is titled Jordanian annexation, not Jordanian occupation, and the entire set of articles related to that should follow that title based on the policy on consistency in titles across a topic. These ancillary articles should follow that, and if editors want to change how Wikipedia refers to the control Jordan held over the West Bank they should do so at Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. nableezy - 23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to no consensus - On what grounds could this decision possibly be defended? The vote was evenly split between the two sides, and it does indeed look like the opposes were relying on more strongly policy-based reasons for calling it a de facto occupation as most sources do. Worse of all though, was the nonsensical closing statement. The closer claimed there was a "much larger consensus that occupation is desirable", but the link provided doesn't show anything even remotely like that. This incoherent closing statement should alone be enough to have the ruling overturned. ErinRC (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your last point, the given link is "occupation" is not desirable in articles titles regarding the topic. Are you saying that the close for that requested move does not support the closing statement here? Apart from that one, there is another one after it Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank - "not moved" which closer has mentioned on his talk page in his reply to Sir Joseph that also supports the close here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). Everyone at Wikipedia knows it's WP:NOTAVOTE and that closers are supposed to look at the relevant policies referenced in the discussion. Then, when a closer actually does it, you get all "surprised Pikachu". Red Slash 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bring no arguments. Only an argument by assertion. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Supervote. No clear consensus, for sure. Was there a rough consensus to move? I'm not sure. Reading through everything, I feel inclined to !vote "support" for the move, if it was still open. There are pros and cons. The difference is small, but emotive. In the end, I do not think the closer gave a closing rationale nearly good enough to justify the close. They should not have closed it, but should have !voted instead, it was not ready to be closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This closely related RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has now been closed and should be read in it's entirety. The close includes the statement "Although I do not agree that the no-consensus outcome of a requested move discussion in April 2020 should affect our word choices, editors do prefer "annexation" over both "occupation" and "rule"." which supports the close being reviewed here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how a statement that says that "occupation" and "rule" are both deemed less preferable is relevant to a review of the move from one to the other? Debresser (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closer already explained "the idea of an isolated consensus island isn't what consensus is about in the first place". Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mold (disambiguation) (closed)

Rabbit hemorrhagic disease

Rabbit hemorrhagic disease (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Should have been closed as not moved from the British English spelling, given WP:RETAIN and the majority of opinions against a move. However, the closer ignored all arguments except the one which stated that the ICTV name used the American spelling and "the spelling of the scientific name is not optional". However, firstly Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the ICTV, and secondly, the ICTV's own website states that this only applies to the Latin taxon names of viruses. It does not apply to the common English names of viruses. Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets. This includes British English, which is used by many of the references in the article, themselves written by scientists (not all of them British) who presumably know what they're talking about and who quite happily use the spelling "haemorrhagic". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This move was very obvious from my perspective from the get go and is normally uncontroversial so I immediately moved it as soon as I saw it (though via a messy manner since I was unfamiliar with round robin moves). My move was undone and I let the discussion go ahead with others participating. The opponents of the move have seemingly ignored or shown a lack of awareness or understanding of the arguments made by those supportive of the move (including myself) and of what is standard practice, so I will try to explain this and respond to OP (Necrothesp).

• 1. The article being discussed has three types of names in use: the disease name, the species name, and the common names of the virus. The species name is decided by the ICTV (WP:OFFICIALNAMES) whereas the others are not. WP:ENGVAR, including WP:RETAIN, didn't apply to this article because it had inconsistent spelling used throughout the article and the ae & e spellings would not be considered regional variations in the context of the species name. For both the disease name and the common name of the virus, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT would have applied as the e spelling is more common among both experts and non-experts and it is standard on WP to use the e spelling for articles like this. It also needed to be moved in order to help prevent further edit warring over the spelling, which was occurring prior to the move due to the spelling inconsistencies in the article.

• 2. The OP states that the ICTV uses the American spelling. This is incorrect since because the ICTV decides what the official name of the species is, that is therefore the global name, including the British name. Trying to frame this as an America vs British issue is misleading.

• 3. "firstly Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the ICTV" This would set a bad precedent for WP as it would misinform readers and undermine the legitimacy WP to not follow official taxonomy.

• 4. "the ICTV's own website states that this only applies to the Latin taxon names of viruses. It does not apply to the common English names of viruses. Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets." This is out of context and the source has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No mention is made of regional variations within English as the source is discussing non-English languages and non-Latin scripts.

To suggest that WP:ENGVAR / WP:RETAIN should apply means ignoring the rules for when those policies are supposed to be applied, ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, ignoring WP:OFFICIALNAMES, ignoring WP:CONSISTENT, ignoring the ICTV, and ignoring that using the ae spelling was causing inconsistent spelling throughout the article and an edit war over the spelling. Therefore, the move should stand and the e spelling should continue to be used from now on so that this issue can be resolved. Velayinosu (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of context and the source has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course it does, since the closer's only stated reason for not closing this RM as a no consensus was another part of this source (i.e. the ICTV website) quoted by a contributor to the discussion! using the ae spelling was causing inconsistent spelling throughout the article and an edit war over the spelling. And that's why we have RMs, to end these edit wars. The spelling should have been established as "ae" as was the clear result of the RM. Then anyone who edit warred over it could be referred to the RM. Your whole statement seems to be suggesting that the many scientists who have spelt it "haemorrhagic" in the sources are incorrect. I would suggest to you that they actually are not and the fact they have spelt it this way means that many experts in the field do spell it this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that you have used the source incorrectly. As I have tried to explain, there is a difference between a species name and a common name. Andes orthohantavirus is the species name but it has the common names "Andes hantavirus" and "Andes virus". All three are used among experts. The word "common" is not being used here in the sense of "more frequent" but is being used as in "non-taxonomic" or "non-scientific". Note that this is different than WP:COMMONNAME, which concerns frequency and recognizability. The taxonomic name is "Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus". No other recognized spelling for the species exists, so any spelling other than that is incorrect. However, the ae spelling is used for common names of the virus, such as "rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus type 2", which is a subtype of the species, not the species taxon itself. This discrepancy means that this article is not capable of having consistent spelling if the ae spelling is used. If ae is used consistently, then the article is incorrect because the species name uses the e spelling. If e is used consistently, then the article is correct. Velayinosu (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I put it to you that many experts who have written articles cited in this article have spelt the word "haemorrhagic" and therefore presumably did not agree with you that it was incorrect. This is clearly an ENGVAR issue, whether you want to admit it or not and WP:RETAIN therefore clearly applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard procedure for enacting virus taxonomy is that experts submit proposals and these proposals are approved and ratified by other experts. It is the experts who you are referring to who decided that the species name is to use the e spelling (note that there is a difference between scientific/taxonomic names and common names). If the experts wanted the species to be spelled ae then they would have changed its name but they haven't. Only one spelling is recognized for the species name, so WP:ENGVAR is non-applicable in terms of that. Velayinosu (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. That was not a consensus. Checking the user_talk discussion swings me to say WP:Supevote. Reference 3 spells it "haemorrhagic", and it looks like a plain WP:RETAIN case. One of the characteristics of RETAIN is people saying things like "very obvious from my perspective". The discussion is a plain "no consensus", and for "no consensus" WP:RETAIN applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an obvious move in the sense that normally articles like this are moved without discussion or controversy. There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling, so if no move request had been made then this article would have eventually been moved by myself or someone else anyways. And WP:RETAIN doesn't apply in this case as I have explained. If the move is overturned on the basis of WP:RETAIN, then it will have to be moved again. Velayinosu (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It’s obvious that it is obvious to you, but that discussion does not show others being persuaded. You should cite your “ There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ICTV is referenced in WP:VIRUS's guidelines. In addition to that, the consensus is agreed upon because no one objects to it. We routinely move virus articles without discussion to conform to ICTV taxonomy and we've never had any disagreements about this. If you look at the move proposal for Rabbit hemorrhagic disease, you'll notice that there was a clear divide between users who contribute to virus articles and those who do not. The move proposer and main contributor of the article is an expert in the article's subject and I and the two others who supported the move contribute regularly to virus articles. The opponents of the move are people who, if you check their edit history, do not regularly contribute to virus articles. And judging from my conversation with the OP of the move review, it seems to be that opponents of the move did not understand what was being discussed. If the people who do not help with virus articles had stayed out of the discussion as they should have, then the move proposal would have been 4-0 in favor of the move, reflecting the consensus that exists among us who edit virus articles. I think that that's a more productive way of thinking about this rather than giving equal weight to non-contributors. Velayinosu (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree in giving greater weight to the article editors, that weighting really should come thorough with cited detail in the evidence in their !votes. In this case, I do not see subject expert arguments, but an age-old haem/hem ENGVAR argument, which like I pointed out is evident in the third reference. Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Guidelines does not to my reading speak to ICTV governing spelling decisions. The only occurrence of "spell" on the WikiProject page doesn't seem relevant. So, I think you are over-reaching, and I think your “There is a longstanding consensus among virus article contributors to defer to the ICTV's spelling” remains uncited. I see no evidence of RETAIN being superceded, and repeat by !vote here that the closer WP:Supervoted. User:Peter coxhead made a strong-looking !vote, but he cited a directory source only, and the next 3 !voters were 2:1 against, the last two arguing WP:RETAIN. It was a "no consensus" mis-closed with a Supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that WP:ENGVAR applies in this case since the species name only has one spelling and using ae for the disease causes the article to have inconsistent spelling. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT do clearly apply though (why would WP:ENGVAR override the other policies and not vice versa?). Since it doesn't seem clear enough that the ICTV is to be followed, I'll try to amend WP:VIRUS's guidelines sometime in the near future to make sure that this is stated clearly. Some parts are outdated or ambiguous or could be worded better so it is due for some changes anyways. If the article is moved back to ae, then I'll see if I can move it to the correct and more common spelling later after updating the guidelines. Velayinosu (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN apply until there is a consensus otherwise. Seeking a consensus to document a consensus at WP:VIRUS is definitely the best was forward for this. The talk page consensus is more important than WP:VIRUS, because it is a Wiki Project page, not a {{guideline}}. COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY can be very strong reasons to overcome ENGVAR. It is parallel to haemoglobin, where I am surprised there is ongoing dispute, and sulphur, where I believe the IUPAC spelling is decisive, chemists all using "sulfur", with chemists by far the dominant group that talks about this element. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There are exceptions to WP:RETAIN, and I think this is a valid one. The scientific name of the virus should be applied to the spelling that is used for the disease, as this article is not just about the disease, it is also about the virus that causes it. However, the rest of the spellings throughout the article should be retained as whatever variant of English the article was started with. The change in the title and spelling of the disease should not be used as an excuse to change the spellings in the rest of the article text to a version of English other that what the article initially used, whatever that was. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That... is not what we do at Wikipedia. Red Slash 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're going to have to be more specific. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The text of an article needs to match the variety of English in its title. This is the case even for articles like elevator. Red Slash 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and trout - this is as clear-cut a case of WP:RETAIN as you could hope for. "The name is ___" - what a terrible justification for a closure. Yeah, the name is ____ if you're an American. I am, incidentally, very much an American, and I would never write hemaerraeoegaeic or whatever they write in Britain. But that's irrelevant; it's a perfectly valid name in its own variety of English and it's just as recognizable as the American version would be. I would highly recommend to the closer to learn from this experience and not to close similar move requests until he understands our naming policies better. Red Slash 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am the person who closed the discussion and moved the article to its new title. Although the move discussion was inconclusive and the WP:RETAIN argument was put forward by several editors, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority". I felt that it was common sense that the title of the article about the disease should agree with the title of the article about the virus, an internationally accepted name, and that this argument completely outweighed "WP:RETAIN". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling over this RM, and this does carry some weight. RETAIN isn't always the end all on naming subjects. Sometimes retaining what was there first causes wider issues with consistency, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is actually subordinate to WP:RETAIN. See Color and Orange (colour) and color gel and colour state. Red Slash 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have a separate article about the virus! So how is this in the slightest relevant? Plus see my comments about even the ICTV's own website not being in agreement that virus names (as opposed to taxon names, which are in Latin) have to conform to what they use (they just happen to use American English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because the disease and virus share an article. Again, you are citing the ICTV incorrectly. The web page that you linked to is about non-English languages and non-Latin scripts. Also, Latin is not used to give viruses taxonomic names the same way it is for animals, plants, etc. (though it is the case that many words in virus names are ultimately derived from Latin). You can see the scientific names of viruses here. This article uses both the scientific name and common names, but spelling the species as ae is simply incorrect, so e should be used if we want to be accurate. Velayinosu (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore these virus names may, in contrast to taxon names, be translated as desired into local languages and alphabets. I see no reference to it only referring to non-English languages. spelling the species as ae is simply incorrect. What a load of drivel. All the esteemed scientists who have used that spelling are incorrect are they? What a truly arrogant statement. It's simply an American spelling. It's no more or less correct than the British spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads your source will understand that it is talking about other languages and that it does not mention spelling variation in English. & the sentence you are quoting is about common names, not scientific names. There is a difference and the article uses both. Scientists spell common names however they want, but it is the ICTV that decides the spelling of scientific names, as your source says. Essentially, the ae spelling is a common name, not the scientific one. Velayinosu (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds exactly what necessitates WP:RETAIN. How many different English-speaking nations have you worked in? Wikipedia does not delegate decisions to ICTV, not without an explicit consensus to do so. The closer was wrong to WP:SUPERVOTE their wrong opinion on WP:RETAIN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:RETAIN (and the related WP:TITLEVAR) aren't without exceptions. Moving a page to the scientific name would certainly qualify as a reason to move despite RETAIN. Calidum 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Calidum, that would be true if the participants discussed the case an an exception to RETAIN. However, three participants !voted that RETAIN applies, and no one argued that it did not, the supporters ignored the RETAIN argument. It is not OK for the closer to SUPERVOTE an unstated anti-RETAIN argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Necrothesp. Additionally: this was not a fair reading of WP:CONSENSUS and looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. <uninvolved> IMHO this is an exception to RETAIN and more commonly seen both in scientific and other global communities. The SUPERVOTE link might need to be reread in this case, because this was not a supervote by the closer; this was a good read of an unusual type of consensus. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]