Oriya language (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

(I'm new to all this.) I'd like to request that the Oriya language wiki be moved to Odia language. The talk page appears to have had a (now archived) discussion on this subject and the decision appears to have been against the move. While the primary reason behind the decision appears to be "Nobody actually uses 'Odia'", I find this point of view short-sighted. The name change is not an arbitrary one, but an official decision by the Government of Odisha, representatives of the people. The change to the new spelling has been gradual, but it is happening. The rate of change (in my experience) is not dissimilar to that of the switch from Orissa to Odisha. Any arguments against the move from Oriya to Odia should also hold for Oriss to Odisha. Yet, Wikipedia prefers the spelling of Odisha to Orissa even though the latter is still the more prevalent. This position is inconsistent. IMHO, it should either be Orissa and Oriya or the official names of Odisha and Odia. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. This request clearly doesn't belong at MRV. To quote the section What this process is not above: "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." If you believe that you have a strong cause, you should initiate a new discussion following the guidelines at WP:RM/CM. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Do I just open another topic on the talk page and wait? How do I got about attracting the attention of interested users and the previous nay-sayers?
• Move this nomination to a new thread at Talk:Oriya_language. Not a move review request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The close is fine, however, the 3-month moratorium on move requests has created a lot of problems. The problems are outlined in my comment here (discussion with the closer). In a nutshell, the original title was too POV, the new title is neutral (rightly so) but overly broad, referring to the whole of 2014 rather than the events of July 2014 which is what the page is about. Due to the confusion, there are multiple battles going on like those outlined here and here. I believe the moratorium should be lifted in so that I can propose a neutral title, like "Gaza War (2014)" which is similar to other titles like Gaza War (2008-09) to define the scope of the article precisely. Plenty of sources detailed here for the new title.Kingsindian (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. The argument that the current title is overly broad does not seem unreasonable and, from memory, in the RM where the move was made (disclaimer: I closed it) the arguments were mainly centred around the then-current title ("Operation Protective Edge") being POV. I think I would be open to removing the moratorium provided this new RM does not have "Operation Protective Edge" or a variation thereof as the proposed title, as I think it's clear the community has made several clear decisions against that title. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that consensus is to rename the article to something that more precisely limits the scope of the article, and while I'm not sure that this would be correct (or agreed upon), but "2014 Israeli-Gaza War" might be a proposed title. Or, July/August Israeli-Gaza Conflict. The problem right now is that the title including "Conflict" isn't exact enough, and allows for overly broad interpretation. Hires an editor (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was called "Operation Protective Edge". There were two proposed moves at once, and then somehow it got moved to the new name without the proposals ever reaching a consensus. The main claim against the old title was that it's POV since it is the IDF's name for the operation. In my opinion this is the best name since it has well defined time frame. There are many examples that using one side's name for an operation name does not mean approving or condemning it in any way - see Operation Barbarossa. - WarKosign (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the article title change had consensus or not has already been subject to a review which found it did have consensus. But this confirms my view that people will not accept such outcomes and will just keep on challenging the title at every opportunity. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply to nitpick, comparisons to Operation Barbarossa are flawed, but I keep seeing them made in these discussions. The article on Barbarossa describes only the opening assault of a larger conflict, which is described by the non POV titles [[Eastern Front {World War II)]] and World War II. A similar policy is followed with many other operations of the Second World War and other wars - POV titles are only used as detailed studies of events within a much broader topic. Although arguably the current Gaza conflict is simply a continuation of a longer conflict, I do believe it is enough of a standalone event to merit not being considered just another Israeli operation in the history of the Middle East. 195.99.195.82 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gaza War (2014) is a fair title for the article,same as the 2008/9 Gaza War. Using the Israeli name for the operation would not be neutral in my opinion. GGranddad (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave "Israel" out of the title? Were they not involved? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closing admin The moratorium was set because the previous move discussion that changed the title to its current was immediately followed by an RM to reverse it less than 12 hours later. Consensus can change but repeated discussions at such a rate is clearly disruptive, indicative that supporters of a title that loses will be back at the first opportunity and in the short time that discussion was open many responses requested a speedy closure rather than having to go through it all again immediately. The first RM was taken to Move Review which endorsed the closure and that there was consensus to move but the fact that users keep on declaring that there wasn't suggests they will just keep on pushing at every opportunity and will not accept findings of consensus. Endless RMs do not help so if there is to be any further discussion before the end of October it should come with the requirements 1) No more RMs after it for at least three months; and 2) "Operation Protective Edge" & such variations cannot be considered since that title has been rejected already by community consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering: I am fine with such conditions. As I noted above, my only interest is to keep the scope of the article clear, since it is leading to massive headaches. They have temporarily subsided, but have a habit of returning with a vengeance. Kingsindian (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason to remove "Israel" from the title. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is all the reason; wars are very often named after where they take place. This one is taking place in Gaza.--ɱ (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural question: what Move discussion is Reviewed here? Any link? -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Just click on the (RM) link on the right-top side. Kingsindian (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No statement one way or the other on which title is more appropriate or not, but the 3-month moratorium is very appropriate because of the behavior of the participants on both sides of these discussions. The issue here is not the correct title, the issue here is that people involved are behaving badly, and a mechanism needs to be in place to stop that behavior. This mechanism stops that. 3 months is the right length to let things die down, but not so long that if situations in the conflict change that DO precipitate a name change; we can address those. --Jayron32 14:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the name change issue (preventing it, that is), has lead to edit warring regarding the scope of the article. I think that's part of the move request now. In other words, the bad behavior has manifested itself in edit wars regarding what should be in the article, how far back it should go (after all, July is only the start of the 2nd half of 2014, and the previous 6 months had stuff happen, too, why shouldn't that be in there?). If we go ahead and make a scope change (article name change) now, it will alleviate a lot of the edit warring regarding scope - and people can then fight about something else! ;-) People will then be able to handle forking for "proper" reasons, like timeframe. But generally, I believe that it's right to go ahead and fix the name now, rather than continue to wait. Hires an editor (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close / moratorium The speedy close was clearly correct given the time and results of the previous close. The moratorium is reasonable, especially given the number of recent move related discussions, and the calls for speedy closes in the RM itself. That said the closers proposed adjustment to the moratorium above also seems reasonable. ( Aside: I think a move history log should be added to the talk page header given the number of moves and reviews, if I get a little more time I'll try to trace through the history and archives and build such a page but hopefully someone beats me to it as I'm currently on vacation. ) PaleAqua (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Move / Rename The first issue here is that there is currently majority consensus that the article should be moved; that it should be renamed Gaza War (2014); and that it should have a scope that is directly related to the latter. The second is that, should we waver from that line, it is likely that a precedent will be set anew, and editors with different persuasions will return to insisting that their alternative views regarding triggers and pertinence of precursor events be included .... all of them. Background bloating will be the consequence. Discussing such an extended Background scope has proved to be fruitless after weeks of attempts. There are many Wiki precedents for a disciplined 'Background' subsection, short and pertinent, with a redirect by means of a "Main Page" reference to a more detailed Wiki article which removes the burden of scope deviation and potential 'bloatedness' from their Background sections, and that have not led to "Content Forking". Some (non-exclusive) examples, which involve conflicts spanning hours to decades, are Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor; Origins of the Six-Day War; Lead-up to the Iraq War; Events leading to the Falklands War; and Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user is here for barely more than two weeks, with half of the edits made here.Forbidden User (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend Hamas 2014 offensive as a possible new name. Quis separabit? 21:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Why leave "Israel" out of the title? Were they not involved?" -- only in the same way that a mugging victim who fights back is "involved" with his/her attacker. Quis separabit? 21:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a reminder that this discussion is about the close, and specifically about the moratorium and not itself a move request. PaleAqua (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close/moratorium I recall joining the July RM and the proposed title got universal opposition. As this article is highly visible, I don't perceive a problem with the moratorium. Erictheenquirer mentioned a "majority consensus" (while Wiki is not democratic) on moving the title to an unsourced "Gaza War" (while historians name wars after both sides!) but I cannot see it. Jayron32 has made a good point that the review is mostly caused by inappropriate behaviour, not real dispute. The speedy close is justified to me, concerning the many RMs which reaffirm the current title. Clearly WP:Recentism got in the way and made the impression that events before the "war" are not the main points of this article. Israli is part of the battlefield, as HAMAS fired rockets into its territory.Forbidden User (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close broadly. I don't have an opinion on the specific name which is most appropriate but stability in naming articles is valuable by itself especially where articles generate multiple (potentially conflicting) move requests in short order. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric particulate matter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

I requested that this move be relisted so that I would have an opportunity to address it when I got home from Wikimania. It is my absolute right to request a relisting, for any any reason, and this request was ignored, resulting in a move being carried out with no evidence being presented to upset the existing primary topic consideration. Furthermore, relevant projects which I would have notified upon my return went unnotified. I request that the move be reversed so that a properly publicized discussion can be carried out with properly adduced evidence.bd2412 T 00:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Obviously a proper close. The onus is on WikiProjects to monitor, not on closers to check WikiProject notification. This nomination lacks, and needs, a substantive argument for why the current title is worse than the previous. It would probably be more productive to open a thread at Talk:Atmospheric_particulate_matter, and proceed to a fresh RM should substantive arguments be agreed with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is so obvious that this is a proper close, then what harm could come from extending the discussion for a few more days out of respect for an editor who has spent nine years working on this project, and was only unable to participate in this discussion for having been at Wikimania, working tirelessly to improve all aspects of Wikimedia? bd2412 T 02:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that any existing participants in the RM were at fault, and I think that means that we should "move forward", not backwards. "Obviously a proper close" does not necessarily mean "the right result"; I am intrigued by what contribution you will have speaking against that rename, but on principle I won't support this nomination that asserts no technical procedural failing and doesn't include any substantive criticism of the rename. The harm would be the implied criticism of the closer for performing this close. There are too few qualified, impartial, reliable RM closers, and this closer does not deserve this criticism. I would not have made this nomination, but instead would have opened a new thread on the talk page and detailed problems with the rename that the other participants failed to see. In anticipation, I would suggest that "particulates" to me is more likely to refer to water quality, like total suspended solids, and has for decades at least been an important matter of water quality, and is established (boring) knowledge, and that interest in atmospheric particulates has a recentism bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it suspicious, at least, that G. C. Hood appears to have waited until I had announced that I was away before filing the move request, and posting a request for my participation in the discussion directly under the note on my talk page stating that I would be unavailable until the 12th. It seems disingenuous at least, and at worst like some kind of shenanigans, to act like the participation of an editor in a discussion is valued and requested while initiating the discussion when the same editor will be unable to participate. As it turns out, I had some limited windows of opportunity to make a few edits, and I expended some of that time on a straighforward request that this discussion be relisted so that I would have an opportunity to participate (as requested). We have had some lengthy discussions about relisting as a matter of policy, and I know that you are opposed to relisting discussions at all as a matter of principle, but the community in general has endorsed the idea, and as a technical matter, my request should have been honored. As for the substance of the question, I don't know what the evidence would show, as I still have not had a chance to look into it. I got off a plane from London yesterday afternoon exhausted and fully expecting to have some time to address this in the next few days, and today found the discussion closed and the disambig count skyrocketing because of a redirect that violated WP:MALPLACED. I don't know that I would necessarily disagree with the determination that Atmospheric particulate matter is not the primary topic, bit if it isn't then it is a subtopic of an unambiguous primary topic involving all such particulate matter, and that seems not to have been considered at all. bd2412 T 04:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "shenanigans"? I didn't suspect one to consider it. In that case, let's just proceed with the relisted discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't oppose relisting in principle. I've stated that I oppose relisting by involved participants, however, this is not necessarily a strongly held conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that you asked the closer about the close. As it seems to be 3 hours since Anthony last edited today, might it not be wise to wait for them to respond before proceeding with the move review? I also agree with SmokeyJoe's advice above. PaleAqua (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very, very angry about the way that this has played out. I feel that my trust has been abused, and that my dedication to the project has been taken advantage of. I spent my vacation days beta testing Visual Editor upgrades and brainstorming ways to improve all of Wikimedia, and I come back to find that a charade of inviting my participation has been carried out in my absence. Well, if my participation is wanted in the discussion, reopen it and I'll give it. bd2412 T 04:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand being upset, but it is fair to give the closer time as well and it seems they have agreed to the relist. PaleAqua (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as the move has been relisted, there is nothing to do here. PaleAqua (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]