Christian IX of Denmark (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

List of angels in theology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was closed by a user with just 38 edits to the encyclopedia. I suspect that this is not a new user, but a possible sockpuppet. Not sure who the master would be. I recommend that the best course of action would be to let someone else close the RM. Interstellarity (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for another closer to close. It is, quite frankly highly WP:PRECOCIOUS for an editor to begin closing RMs without ever having participated in one. BD2412 T 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we can combine this listing with the one below, since the issue is the same. BD2412 T 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  @BD2412: I agree with you. I was going to combine those into one, but I didn't know how to do that. Interstellarity (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  I have combined the discussions manually and refactored my comment, since this is now one discussion. I think you can do the same. BD2412 T 14:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are several reasons other than sockpuppetry that an experienced editor may have a new account, including an IP who just signed up, a fresh start, or an editor with more than one username used legitimately. Absent a finding of sockpuppetry, whether or not these RMs should be reopened should be based solely on the validity of the close, not the number of edits under the closer's username. Allegations of sockpuppetry are serious and belong at WP:SPI, not here. Station1 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @BD2412 I didn't mean to offend Interstellarity; the reason I didn't respond to them is because my parents advised me not to do so because they were concerned that his/her anger would escalate. This is my first time on any kind of forum. There has to be a first time for everything, and unfortunately his/her requests was one of my first closings. (I did participate in a few move discussions beforehand). I was looking for experience and Wikipedia encourages new users to WP:BEBOLD (Interstellarity's discussion had been left unclosed for a week after the last comment). I have undone my closings and moved on, and I hope he/she will do the same. I encourage you to continue investigating me so you can find I am not a sockpuppet, just a well-read and educated person. Supernova58 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now that you initiated one RM and participated in three others before starting to close discussions. There is absolutely zero indication of "anger" on Interstellarity's part in any of their remarks, so I don't know what you thought might escalate. I would suggest putting a few hundred or even a few thousand edits in article building under your belt before taking on discussion closes. BD2412 T 20:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I meant to say my parents were worried it would escalate to anger, not that it was anger to start with. Thanks for the advice! Supernova58 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Communist Party (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closer @El C closed the discussion which was built upon simplistic arguments. Different views were not expressed, potentially due to a lack of awareness (a low level of consensus was achieved WP:CONLIMITED. The new title does not bring a neutral point of view and violates WP:NPOV. After including arguments against the move, the consensus may change WP:CCC. JMonkey2006 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why JMonkey2006 failed to bother to read my reply, which clearly stated that I am not the closer — the actual closer is YoungForever, which JMonkey2006 did not notify or ping to this discussion. El_C 01:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your reply, but the revision history still says that you closed the move request, El_C - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Communist_Party&action=history. This is my first move review, so I'm not entirely familiar with these terms. If I misunderstood the term 'closer', I apologise. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but for future reference, the documentation is available at WP:CLOSE. El_C 12:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved): consensus was clear and the arguments need not be complex to be correct. BD2412 T 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved): Consensus was clear and the close reflected the discussion and referenced policy. If the policy arguments are clear just citing policy and showing how it applies is as complex as a !vote needs to be. In this case the supporters cited the common name as used in sources via ngrams etc. That's a really strong argument. The discussion ran for a full seven days which is plenty of time for different views to have been expressed. PaleAqua (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. The consensus was pretty clear. I honestly believe relisting would not be appropriate. The move did not violate WP:NPOV and wasn't WP:CONLIMITED at all. Per WP:MRNOT, move review is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. Yet, the editor who made this move review is re-arguing a closed discussion. The editor stated on User talk:El C#Move Review Request (Chinese Communist Party page), I strongly oppose this decision but missed the end of the one-week discussion which ended up almost unanimously agreeing on the move. This clearly means the editor just re-arguing a closed discussion because they missed 7-day elapsed discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the arguments were based upon one simplistic argument. The move, in my opinion did violate WP:NPOV (please see the Discussion with closer). JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I am the closer FYI and you certainly did not contact me to discuss with me. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I participated in the discussion, but the consensus for the move was overwhelming. The close could not have gone any other way. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I participated in this discussion and the consensus was overwhelming. I question JMonkey2006’s judgement in challenging this move and their belated arguments in favor of CPC appear spurious. How is this an NPOV issue? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my (Discussion with El C). If you want some reading to do, https://www.quora.com/Should-one-say-CCP-or-CPC-when-referring-to-the-Chinese-Communist-party. JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while I was not participate in that discussion, this current title violates WP:NPOV and WP:OFFICIAL NAME beside actually official name is CPC (Communist Party of China). 182.1.234.224 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — 182.1.234.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think you meant to write Overturn instead. JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow endorse (uninvolved) Fails WP:MRNOT: Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a page move discussion ... this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. The originator is arguing the close because Different views were not expressed. The close was correct based on actual arguments made. Procedurally, the MR was also opened without contacting the closer, even after the originator was told they did not contact the correct closer.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• EndorseUninvolved.Arguments need not be complex to be correct HAH! I note that User:Nutez made a very weak RM proposal statement, followed up by a !vote in very poor form. I’d call that “disruption” and it’s a wonder that the discussion didn’t go off the rails. HQRS indeed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) per all of the above. The community's consensus seems very clear in this RM. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved). Consensus was obviously established per WP:COMMONNAME. It should really be moved to Chinese Communist Party/CCP. Even news articles in the US and the Philippines refer to it as the CCP. HiwilmsTalk 19:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel pump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

I still need to understand the reason why Fuel pump is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and why we can't name it as Fuel pump (engine component) Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What was wrong with the close? The consensus looked pretty clear to me and I don't see how this could be anything but endorse. PaleAqua (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. There is a pretty clear consensus. Per WP:MRNOT, move review is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• BilCat Why is the fuel pump for engines the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? What is the problem naming it as Fuel pump (engine component)? Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close WP:MRNOT. Use Talk:Fuel pump for discussing the naming of the topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. This should be a thread at Talk:Fuel_pump. It is not a review of an RM close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. BD2412 T 00:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and relist. <uninvolved> Going out on a limb here, because it appears to me that the closer did not correctly assess the validity of the oppose rationales. "Clearly the primary topic"? Page views say no, as well as long-term significance says no. So apologies to the closer, and believe me I'm never happy with an editor who fails to discuss these first with the closer, but this looks like an "Oh what the heck, five opposes so 'not moved' just MUST be the right way to go," kind of non-closure. There is no PTOPIC here, so the dab page is needed and should be at the base name. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a "reopen" is inappropriate, and even before the close, a "relist" would have been inappropriate. to begin with, the RM rationale is poor, below standard. "... I want to hear from other contributors. I don't really understand ..." is not a considered proposal for consensus decision making, it should have been a talk page post. Second, the editor who made a comment motivating the RM gave a very strong negative !vote. Third, the discussion already had four respondents in SNOW opposition. I am normally a strong proponent of good explanations for closes, but not in the case of unanimous opposition. It is not OK for the nominator to demand answers to their comments just because they initiated a formal RM process. There is room for further discussion, but the case does not look to be there that anything needs urgent fixing, and it looks like there is no better outcome than the status quo sitting in the wings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) You know how loath I am to disagree with you, SmokeyJoe; however, in this case all of the oppose rationales were either specific about the topic presently at the base name as the primary topic, non-specific at all in terms as to why they opposed, or they merely agreed with the above opposers. So they all should have been thrown out. The page should have been renamed with a qualifier and the dab page moved to the base name. Poor closure! Let's say I had closed the RM, discounted the opposes and moved the pages. Now let's say one of the opposers opened an MRV against my closure. Wikipedia is not a democracy! Would you have BADNAC'd my close? or would you have seen through the poor oppose rationales and endorsed my close? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Jack (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Note: listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure this date. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin closure of a move where there was not clear consensus in the discussion, and so contrary to WP:RMNAC. JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Per RMNAC: NACs are not discouraged for requested moves, as long as the non-admin is highly experienced with RMs and our closing procedures. and the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure.. I have participated in and closed many WP:PRIMARYTOPIC RM discussions (which this discussion turned on), and consider myself to be highly experienced in this area of Wikipedia's guidelines. Iffy★Chat -- 11:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per RMNAC: Non-admin closes normally require that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)., which is the point at hand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) RMNAC is not as restrictive as claimed. More importantly, it's the right close to "move" anyways. Consensus among participants was that long-term significance was more heavily argued than page views (the footballer getting 40/day). WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says that There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors ... While signficance and page views are valid criteria, there were more in support of the significance. Note to the RM closer, Iffy, that your personal opinion of If we were forced to pick a primary topic, the footballer would probably win seems neither relevant nor correct for a close.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I did not participate in the discussion, and might have opposed it if I had, but the close was a reasonable one. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even if reasonable people would have closed it differently, is not usually sufficient for overturning the result." And since everyone seems to like quoting parts of RMNAC they think supports their case, let's remember "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Calidum 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse while I would probably have closed this as no consensus the supports did at least make some points about long-term significance, yes they were weaker than the arguments against the move in terms of usage but that might just show that there's a split in the consensus and that if in doubt its best for the closer to assume that there is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No consensus is status quo, not "no consensus so moved", even with dabs. And this makes the point: non-admin closes normally require that the consensus is clear, and it wasn't. It seems from this discussion that that instruction in WP:RMNAC needs to be removed as incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This reads like a !vote to overturn, not endorse -- if you are arguing there is no consensus, we don't default to no primary topic, we would keep the status quo.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as nominator. Although I made no further comments after submitting the nomination, the four "support" votes for dislodging the footballer from his primary position came from Ortizesp and GiantSnowman, both of whom specialize in footballer articles, as well as from two longtime admins, Andrewa and Necrothesp, who felt sufficiently strongly about the matter so as to return for additional rebuttals, with Andrewa even creating a discussion section about imperfection of primary topic selection (User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#David Jack). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  From that discussion section: "We might as well have tossed a coin to decide.", i.e., there was no clear consensus, as specified for a non-admin close. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BADNAC. There was no clear consensus. Essentially, that was a close appropriate for “admin discretion”, which non-admins do not enjoy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (uninvolved): "If we were forced to pick a primary topic, the footballer would probably win" feels like it would have belonged more in a !vote than a close. AI'm not as sure that close is correct that long-significance arguments favor moving. The usage graphs show relatively level usage over the life of the article and is likely what comments such as "Click on the links provided. The footballer has long-term significance" imply should be understood from the charts. I can see the close at best being no-consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @PaleAqua: There is no guideline that page views are the primary determining factor for a primary topic, nor that page views are the main criteria for long-term signficance (see WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY). It would be a WP:SUPERVOTE for a closer to weigh them heavier than the participants did.—Bagumba (talk)

  • I agree that page views only a tool to gauge usage. Even usage and long-term significance are only "commonly consider"ed. That said the argument for moving primarily is that the page does not have a primary topic. Opposers used page views and time lines (60 years after his passing) to argue that the footballer was the primary topic. Supporters arguments were mostly of the form that there was no primary topic. One of the stronger support asserted knights of the realm and an award-winning musician currently on the road were examples that should have as much claim to the topic, but no data to show that. There are weaknesses to the arguments on both sides here. Usages has been demonstrated, and arguments both for and against long-term significance are debated without a clear consensus. Other comments such as JHunterJ's argument of what serves the reader combined with the states for the disambiguation page are also strong arguments. I don't think that the close gave proper weight to the lack of consensus for long-term significance and seems to only credit the opposes for usage arguments. PaleAqua (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn <uninvolved> I'm not sure how I would vote, but this is a discussion evenly split between policy based rationales. I see no way that it could be interpreted as a consensus to move. The closer seems to recognize that the consensus was split, but overruled this because of an interpretation that community consensus says otherwise, which is not the case. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participants were split in their interpretations of how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be applied in this case, not that the consensus was split. That diff (which I presume you mean to include the entire quote) does not say what you think it says. Iffy★Chat -- 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, that diff does not say that "consensus was split".—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Don't see a consensus to move yet in that discussion, so the decision should have been "no consensus", in which case I would have relisted the RM. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Clearly no consensus here. Though once again the introduction of historical significance to PT rears its ugly confusing head. MR is overrun due to artificial and unnecessary conflicts resulting directly from this terrible decision. Long-term significance is implicit in the usage criteria to a degree sufficient to obviate a separate explicit criteria that often is n conflict and leads to much unnecessary debate - if it’s that significant then its usage will reflect that. —В²C ☎ 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this argument, and I'm sure you're well aware of this, is that there is a community consensus for both prongs of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; and the place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, not in individual move reviews. If your position (that usage should be the only or primary criteria considered) was one supported by community consensus, I would never have closed this RM as Moved and we wouldn't be here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, respectfully, the consensus has never been that a topic can only be a primary topic if it unambiguously meets both prongs. We have plenty of move discussions, including ones initiated by users in this discussion, where the consensus decision is that a primary topic is a primary because it overwhelmingly is more significant in the long term despite not being so with page views, and the other way around. There has never been a consensus that arguments that focus more on one prong are somehow unacceptable, as this close seems to have determined.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. The community consensus is the opposite, that absent a single "victor" for long-term significance (and so to avoid surprising a reader looking for "apples" with the computer company), usage plays a large role in serving the readership so using it. The opposes in the move review were not advocating for using usage as the only or primary criterion; and the close here took the view that long-term significance should be the only or primary criterion, which definitely isn't the case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both sides focused more on one prong than the other, that doesn't mandate a No consensus closure (or that an admin close the discussion), but instead requires the closer to analyse the arguments to see which side has the stronger arguments and to decide if there is a consensus or not. That is precisely what I did when closing (which I explaied to the initiator of this MR on my user talk page). Iffy★Chat -- 15:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-admin closures are for when the consensus is clear. If the consensus had been clear, no explanation would have been needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Iffy, since WP policy is descriptive rather than proscriptive changes have to happen one article at a time until there is sufficient grounds for a policy change. So individual RM and MR discussions is precisely where arguments to change RM policy must usually be initially presented. —-В²C ☎ 06:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this gets to the problem at hand. You had to use admin discretion for this close, because consensus wasn't clear from the discussion, and so it wasn't up for non-admin closure. This isn't a case of "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin"; it's that fact with the lack of clear consensus, per the move close guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, WP:RMNAC differs: While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said above, if Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days). is no longer the consensus, WP:RMNAC should be updated to remove it. If it is the consensus, it should be followed, or an explanation why this one wasn't normal is needed -- it seems like a normal enough RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • For whatever reason, RMNAC seems to be more liberal (and convoluted) than WP:BADNAC.—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:BADNAC also says The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. and below it WP:NACPIT: Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions. Everything warns against this closure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist since consensus was not clear. While WP:RMNAC doesn't have the force of policy, it exists for a reason, and forestalling brouhahas like this is clearly one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The original discussion had no consensus, but fortuitously it resulted in disambiguation of the base title for over two weeks, allowing us to collect more accurate pageview data than had the footballer occupied the base title continuously. I will note for the record that during the period 7/15-7/31, David Jack (footballer) has 64% of pageviews. For me anything 50-70% is borderline for declaring a primary topic based on pageviews, and other factors should be considered such as Google Web/News/Scholar/Books/Ngram search as well as historical significance. So more discussion seems to be the best option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY does not mandate that page view data is the main determiner of primary topic. In any event, the footballer is getting a scant 40 views/day.—Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't mandate it but it certainly makes clear that page views are a policy-based way to determine primary topics. But that is beside the point; we aren't here to debate the move, but the closure. The closer deciding that !votes using page views as the primary way to determine primary topic is overriden by other arguments is certainly a valid !vote, just as the opposite would be (ruling that a discrepancy in page view stats may overpower uncertainty about long term significance). But it is just that -- a !vote, not a determination that can be made to rule a consensus that did not exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone uninvolved who endorsed the close, I did so because both sides (significance vs page views) had valid arguments, so I deferred to the side with more suppporters—those arguing significance. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And I definitely think that's a fair interpretation, but these sorts of cases, where there are valid arguments being made on both sides but the "majority" is pretty slim, and the argument has only been up for a week vs. relisting, are the exact sort of close calls (especially when the decision is not "no consensus" but rather determining there is a consensus) that admin closes are better designed for. It doesn't help that the closing rationale was not that both sides made valid arguments and therefore the slight numbers win, but rather that one set of arguments are more legitimate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Novae (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closer appear to have simply counted heads (contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE), and ignored WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus. There is no sign of the closer making any attempt to follow the instruction to evaluate their 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 ... which are crucial in this case, because most of the ignored the clear guidance at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary.
When I tried to discuss this at User talk:Amkgp#RM_close, the non-admin closer @Amkgp made no attempt to engage with the issues I raised. I don't know whether this was conscious evasion or simply failure to understand policy ... but either way, this is a WP:BADNAC#2: the outcome was likely to be controversial, so the close should have been left to an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to move – I don't think the comments in opposition adequately took into account WP:PLURALPT, which would've tipped the scales to move were I closing the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move (involved) the oppose arguments were indeed mainly saying that because this topic was the only article that could actually be physically placed at this title that this was entitled to be here, that is clearly not the case as explained by BHG and myself about WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (and one editor has persistence ignored that). The closer should have drastically discounted those arguments as being explicitly against policy. The other argument was that there is only 1 other use which may implicit lead to WP:2DABPRIMARY (though no one actually made that point) but that is also not likely valid since stronger evidence if anything was provided that the astronomical meaning is primary if anything. The support side provided evidence based on search results and views as well as long-term significance per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY that if anything the astronomical meaning is primary. I would either close this as a move and create a DAB at "Novae" (or redirect it to another DAB) with a note that a RFD could be started at any time to make the astronomical meaning primary but there was clear consensus at minimum that the fortress doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In addition there was a majority (5 including the nom v 3) in support of the move so even only taking into account "votes" there was a consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while I agree in general that not having another article titled Novae is irrelevant, let’s not pretend that was the main argument opposing. The bottom line is that there was insufficient evidence showing that the fortress was not the primary topic, much less that Nova was more likely the article sought by someone searching with Novae. There was no clear consensus favoring the move. —В²C ☎ 20:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Google results (including limited to WP), page view statistics, arguments about the astronomical meaning being far more important (and quite possibly more likely to be sought). The nom and the 1st 2 other supporters provided evidence as such and though the last 2 supports didn't contain such evidence they were likely basing their arguments based on the facts provided. In what way were this not sufficient? There was as noted almost no evidence presented to support the claim that the fortress was the primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move – no coherent opposition was presented to this well-reasoned proposal. B2C's comment "Novae is the name of this topic. The title should reflect that, and the current one does." was vacuous. The name is still the name if disambiguated from its more common interpretation. And Station1's "There's no other article on WP that needs the title." is pretty irrelevant, too, as nobody claimed another article needed that as the title. It's about precision versus ambiguity. Precision good; ambiguity bad. Closer didn't seem to notice the arguments supporting the overwhelming primary meaning when he said simply "no consensus". Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I'm confident that in time the closer will learn a better grasp of the nuance necessary for more complex discussions of primacy like these. Arguments in favor of moving here are an order of magnitude stronger than arguments for the substantially more obscure topic retaining the title. Although the discussion was well past seven days when closed, I would have relisted to try to elicit a more definitive outcome, as having back at the top of the list might have garnered some additional perspectives. BD2412 T 05:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how a relist would be appropriate (though I'd have no objection) as you note the arguments in favour were significantly stronger (and in the majority) that a clear consensus to at least move the fortress away from the base name. Then as I suggested above there could be a discussion at RFD about what to do with the base name (DAB or redirect to Nova). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just saying that if I came upon the discussion in this state, I would definitely relist it. A good relist always beats a bad close. BD2412 T 15:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A good relist always beats a bad close but there was already clear consensus to move so I'm not sure why a relist would be needed other than to discuss what to do with the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move. (uninvolved) I believe there was consensus to move because the arguments made by the opposition were weak. This looks like a simple case of vote counting rather than considering the merits of the arguments. Calidum 18:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move. This was a clear consensus to move in line with clearly expressed policies and guidelines. Note that murder in Texas is also at move review due to close by the same non-admin. Have not looked for other closes. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (move). The arguments for moving are strong and should be reflected in the close. PaleAqua (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• An obscure title, wiki-linking wise, but novae is the plural of nova and should redirect to it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to move, the arguments behind moving were substantially more convincing than the opposes, and this should have been taken into account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (uninvolved) I can't give wide leeway for "no consensus" when one of the opposer's main argument was that it's been here all these years (WP:SILENCE). I'm puzzled that people are arguing about "counting votes" when a pure headcount would have landed in a move. All the opposers acknowledged the plural option, but stated that a hatnote was sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect if one was vote counting one might have chosen "no consensus" since there weren't significantly more arguments in favour than against. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be semi-advanced vote counting. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bagumba, the point is to determine consensus, not a simple majority. There was no consensus, by any reasonable measure. So no move. —В²C ☎ 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move, since the arguments for moving were unmistakably stronger, at least if you know the title policy, the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, and RM practice. PS: I don't think we should be seeing Amkgp's username here so frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• heh, takes me back to a time not so long ago when my username appeared here a bit more frequently (for the wrong reason) than I would have liked. Helluva learning experience. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Texas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Note: listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure this date. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closer @Amkgp appear to have simply counted heads (contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE), and ignored WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus. There is no sign of the closer making any attempt to follow the instruction to evaluate their 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 ... which are crucial in this case, because I challenged all the oppose !votes on fact and policy.
When I raised the issues at User talk:Amkgp#RM_close, the non-admin closer @Amkgp made no attempt to engage with the issues I raised. I don't know whether this was conscious evasion or simply failure to understand policy ... but either way, this is a WP:BADNAC#2: the outcome was likely to be controversial, so the close should have been left to an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Amkgp made the right call here. This RM was open for an extended period of time, and was clearly contentious (2 supported as proposed, 2 wanted something different, and 3 opposed any move entirely). I don't find anything cited by the opposition to be worth throwing out any more than anything cited by the supports. (Just fyi, I probably would've agreed with Paintspot/Crouch if I commented.) Nohomersryan (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• My instinct is to say overturn and relist because discussion was live even shortly before the close, indicating that continued participation in the discussion was likely. Although no discussion is entitled to relisting, this would be a prime candidate for such treatment because it is reasonably possible that continued discussion could have led to a clear consensus, which is preferable. However, if this "no consensus" outcome is maintained, I would suggest as the next step the creation of a draft on the actual concept of murder in Texas (how is it currently defined under state law and how has this changed over time, how is it investigated and punished, what are the specific murder statistics, and what are the most notable examples), which would immediately become the clear primary topic of the term once it was ready to move to mainspace. BD2412 T 19:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BD2412, I agree that such an article specifically about murder in Texas would immediately become the clear primary topic of the term. However, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT:

    The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary

    ... so the existence or non-existence of a standalone article on murder in Texas should not have been a relevant factor in the discussion. The closer should have discounted the !votes which claimed that it was a factor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article specifically about murder in Texas would NOT immediately become the primary topic. Unless such an article garnered more interest than the film article as measured by page views it would not ever be primary. This is the fundamental point BHG doesn’t seem to fully appreciate or they would not have made the proposal in the first place, much less started this MR. Most people searching with murder in Texas are looking for the film, so the film is the primary topic, by definition. —В²C ☎ 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • After all these years participating RM discussions, B2C can hardly have failed to know know by now that pageviews are not the only determinant of primary topic. The other test is long-term significance, which the film clearly fails. It's a great pity that B2C chooses to accuse me of a lack of understanding, when the actual problem is that B2C is misrepresenting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That cherrypicking of the guideline is classic WP:PLAYPOLICY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • HS wasn’t even mentioned in the RM. but yeah, its corrosive influence is palpable there, and now here. I opposed the insertion of the long-term significance criterion into PT precisely because of the confusion, ambiguity, and conflict it creates, as exemplified in this RM and MR. The only reasonable interpretation is to use long term significance as a tie-breaker when the usage criteria (traditionally determined by page views) does not indicate a clear winner. After all, the point of PT is to improve search experience - getting users to the pages they seek efficiently. We don’t do that by putting less-likely-to-be-sought pages at base names, even when they’re more “historically significant”. It’s objectively counter-productive to do it. So, in this case we had a clear winner based on page views, so no need to look at historical significance. Now, if there’s basically a tie based on page views, it makes sense to look at historical significance. But if they’re given equal weight then we might as well start deciding titles based on coin tosses. I don’t think that’s reasonable. —В²C ☎ 23:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even so, I don't mess around. BD2412 T 23:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Such contrived articles are unlikely to get much traffic. What shall we do with Murder in Mesopotamia? —В²C ☎ 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have articles like Transportation in Texas that suffer no such complaint. U.S. states have well-established laws defining murder and its prosecution, and gather copious materials on such prosecutions. I doubt the same can be said for Mesopotamia, so it isn't relevant. BD2412 T 03:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And here we have B2C laying their practice of WP:Tendentious editing. B2C lost the argument about whether to include LTs in PRIMARYTOPIC ... but instead of accepting accept the consensus, B2C is trying WP:GAME the system by acting as if LTS was not a criterion. For the record WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say that the purpose of PT is to improve search experience. And it does not say that usage is primary of LTS. If B2C wants to change WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then they should open an RFC. But instead, B2C is conducting an attrition strategy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It is obvious that there was no consensus, especially if the arguments are evaluated (“Fails WP:ASTONISH”? Really?). That said, while a closer is never obligated to provide a detailed analysis, the community is owed one upon request. That’s a responsibility you pick up when you close. I hope Amkgp steps up and edits their close to provide the requested assessment of arguments. —В²C ☎ 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I made that comment. And yes, it badly fails WP:ASTONISH. A Wikipedia reader searching for Murder in Texas expects to see an article on murders in Texas, capital punishment for murder, maybe a redirect to Crime in Texas or a secitio there, etc. She does not expect to see something on a film.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move – basically another case of B2C claiming that precision is bad. Stupid arguments should be evaluated as such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move – exactly, this was a ridiculous non-admin close that flies in the face of WP:CRITERIA, since murder in Texas means exactly the same as homicide in Texas and should redirect like that to crime in Texas. Would also suggest a review of other closes made by the same editor. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You’re ignoring the fact that there is no film named Homicide in Texas getting more page views than the page on crime in Texas. —В²C ☎ 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this comment is only repeating the minority view held primarily by one long term campaigner to change policy pages, therefore do not see the need to repeat again what has been said literally hundreds of times before. However for a reality check for other editors I link this. Those page views should tell us that almost no one has heard of this 18 hit a day 1981 TV movie and that readers going there are some of them are misled by us with the current sucker title. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (reclose)/Endorse was Overturn and relist (uninvolved): The closing statement is lacking for a no-consensus close, see also WP:RMNAC. I am not convinced that a consensus could not be found here. PaleAqua (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the RM mentioned below about Murder in Mississippi, I'm not longer convinced that further discussion from a relist might lead to a consensus at least in the near term. PaleAqua (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist These are the type of closing that should have been better left to an Admin. Even though Amkgp is trying to help out in closing RM discussions, this is the types they should have avoided. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move. As in the above case, the arguments made against moving were weak. Calidum 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or relist. Disregarding the personal views of those in support and opposition, some of which have been repeated above, I don't see how this discussion could be anything other than no consensus. There were three supports and three opposes, with strongly argued policy reasons for not moving the page - in particular the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, which calls for evaluation of common usage as well as long-term significance, and the fact that there are almost zero other "Murder in <location>" articles or redirects, particularly for US states. The nominator dismissed those as valid oppose rationales, but if nobody's ever created such redirects or articles for any state, how can it be simultaneously be argued that readers are being inconvenienced by not having it as a redirect? Ultimately it boils down to the reader convenience clause in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and also WP:CONSISTENCY with other titles which follow the "X in Y" format - e.g. Murder in Mesopotamia, Death in Venice, Love in Canada, Murder in Mississippi etc. If someone wants to relist it because the discussion was still going on then fine, per BD2412's sensible comment above, then go ahead. But there is no way in the world this could be construed as consensus to move as things stood, RMNAC or otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak relist unlike the Novae close above there was clearly evidence and arguments presented to show that the film was primary. As a side note WP:PRIMARYRED doesn't require that an article has actually been created yet and as noted above there are plans to create such articles which may change the outcome anyway but that might be better in a future RM but in any case I'd say a relist would be helpful here, otherwise endorse. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There is very obviously no consensus in this discussion. The fact that an almost identical discussion is ongoing for Mississippi right now, showing a similar lack of consensus (or even a consensus in the other direction) is telling.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The pretty much identical discussion at Murder in Mississippi has now closed with a strong consensus that it should not be moved. It's now exceedingly clear this close was proper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved> Again, when a RM has run its course (this one's course was more than 13 days) there is nothing to stop closure even if there is no consensus and even if it has not been relisted. Period. Personally, I'd like to see this one reopened in a few months, because then it might just succeed. For now, the article's title should remain intact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SEE ALSO: Talk:Murder_in_Mississippi. Same nom. Same arguments. Different closer. Same result. —В²C ☎ 17:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's also a good WP:MV candidate, since the close is faulty. There's no such close as "Page not moved. There was not consensus to move." The non-admin closer was confused. "there was not consensus" = "no consensus", != "not moved" or "consensus not to move". You're correct that they're essentially the same case; both RMs should have been relisted for further discussion since there are solid policy arguments to make and the RMs were not just sitting there with no one interested in commenting in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I read that closing statement to mean “page is not moved because there is no consensus to move it”. Seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate. I see no fault. —В²C ☎ 17:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Mississippi one probably had a stronger reason to move due to the existence of Murder in Mississippi (book) and the similarly named Murder in Mississipi (painting) so the fact that that was closed as consensus against suggests that the consensus might well be correct here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but relist. Closer did not err in finding no consensus, but with the discussion still active near closing time, it's a good bet that further discussion will lead to a consensus. This is why we relist so many RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Metro Rail Transit System (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I have seen that Amkgp is already mentioned here for an immature closure, so I'll just proceed with this. The closure here by Amkgp is definitely too quick. The last reply to the thread was literally within 48 hours, yet he determined that there was no consensus. HiwilmsTalk 18:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - once something's been open for a week, closers are within their rights to just close it. If you feel this strongly, re-raise the move request in a few months. Red Slash 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close, the correct close, and should not have been left any longer or Relisted, as the half baked proposal wasn’t going anywhere. Do some brainstorming on viable alternatives before launching the next formal RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist since 3 disjoint opinions might turn into something more useful, given time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dicklyon: Exactly. That's what has happened in the RM of Metro Manila metro lines. I think that the main contributors in the article should have been given more time to participate, especially in this pandemic/lockdowns as courtesy. Not everyone's coping well with the situation. HiwilmsTalk 06:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist clearly an important article title requiring more discussion In ictu oculi (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist This type of discussion is what relists are for. The close came too early when the discussion was still getting started. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Per Red Slash. There simply was no consensus here. Because this was closed as no consensus instead of not moved, Hiwilms (or anyone) is free to suggest a new move request pretty much right away, though this discussion here puts that on hold. Calidum 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There isn't a consensus here, but it seems like a situation that could clearly benefit from further discussion. However, no issue with the close, as it was correct to interpret this as having no consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. <uninvolved> While my personal preference is to relist "no consensus" RMs that have not already been relisted at least once, there is nothing to stop this kind of closure. There was definitely no consensus, the discussion was by no means closed early, so this MRV should be procedurally closed. It should never have been opened in the first place for the reasoning, "I have seen that Amkgp is already mentioned here for an immature closure," and in the second place for the reasoning that the closure was "definitely too quick". Trout the nom! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but also relist, per Paine Ellsworth, et al. The closer was not in error, but consensus is probably reachable with a relisting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closure by Amkgp was an immature action which occurred just 4 days after the move request was started. I see other users at Amkgp's TP questioning his other closures.--Mhhossein ^talk 06:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Yes, it shouldn't have been closed that early, but without any argument presented as to why moving the page was wrong, we can't do anything but to endorse the result here. We're not a bureaucracy. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, as some editors work their way through move requests from the bottom up, and absent a WP:SNOW situation (which this was not), the process should run for the number of days that editors have been told it will run. BD2412 T 23:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> It's true that WP is not a bureaucracy; however, there is good reason for the 7-day minimum period for a move request. It gives editors a week to be able to express their opinions and concerns. I agree this is not a SNOW situation with merely three supporters, so this request should not have been closed early. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Premature close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (uninvolved) While on one hand I don't want to give editors free reign to close move requests after five days, I also don't want to delay the inevitable. In this instance, I feel WP:NOTBURO wins out, unless someone can't point out why the move shouldn't have gone through, aside from it being closed two days too soon. Calidum 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, at least, can’t you voice some chastisement of the closer? Inexperienced closers not paying attention to the standard one week is just not ok. SNOW is one thing, but many important points come from editors who are only on once per week. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Clearly a premature close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (uninvolved): Premature close. I'm not sure the page needs to be moved back as part of a reclose though since a relist is likely (but was not SNOW likely at the time of close) to be a move. Just noting the circumstances in the relist and moving back if the result ends up being not moved or no consensus may be enough. PaleAqua (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and resist Premature close. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and resist, since this was clearly a premature close. I see what Iffy is saying, but this was not a SNOW case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gráinne Ní Mháille (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Moved from Special:PermaLink/966849625#Incorrect_non-admin_closure

Note: listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure this date. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the page move discussion on Talk:Gráinne Ní Mháille#Requested move 2 July 2020 got an incorrect non-admin closure. The discussion shows no consensus, necessary for a non-admin close. Beside that, the discussion is influenced by canvassing on Twitter.

@Sceptre: already moved the article. The Banner talk 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Moves has a perpetual backlog and there is nothing that stops experienced editors from closing discussions that don't require administrator intervention. My view of the consensus was that, even discounting the single-purpose accounts and supposed off-wiki canvassing, the strength of the arguments was towards closing it the way I did. Sceptre (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Seems like a good close by Sceptre. In any case, there's no stricture on non-admins closing requested moves: the only criteria is that the closer is an uninvolved editor [who is] in good standing (which I don't think the OP is questioning). Also the procedure for contesting a disputed move request closure is at WP:MVR, and does not, in fact, involve WP:AN all. ——Serial ^# 10:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I did not know the existence of Wikipedia:Move review. My bad. The Banner talk 11:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Was this a WP:BADNAC? Maybe, but probably not. Was it a correct reading of consensus? Maybe, but probably yes. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Mabuska already stated: If you take out the 3 socks or IPs who only have edited in this discussion, the tally is actually 13 for and 9 against. The Banner talk 11:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussions are not a vote. I don't see why AN is involved at all, especially as this seems like a well written and contimplated closure. MVR is the location for a move request closure discussion.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The decision is the correct one. Mumbai, not Bombay' Beijing, not Peking; Uluru not Ayer's Rock. The same principle applies to people, and will become more and more common as geography and history books are de-anglicised. There is still an argument for Gráinne Mhaol over Gráinne Ní Mhaille, but either is better than the wrong name, and a name she never went by in life, being used. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment everything above this line was copied from WP:AN, hence any formatting/style/"argument" disparities between how it's "usually done". Primefac (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (Uninvolved) Per WP:RMNAC, "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure." The discussion was a close call, but in the end it was the correct one. The closer thoroughly explained their reasoning and their closing statement is an example others, admin or not, should look to in the future as an example. Calidum 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Calidum: no offence, but I don't use male pronouns. :) Sceptre (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry. I've corrected it. Calidum 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I read the close reason and thought it made sense. Granted I already supported the move but as best I could I read the reasons given to see if they seemed reasonable and they did. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 17:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this discussion is that you have supporters of the move declaring endorses of it here. It should be uninvolved editors making the decision not editors who are involved.

In any event and regardless of the result of this discussion, whether it be a revert or keep, I started a new discussion on the article title at the article talk page to take into account the glaring problems with the move request that was improperly closed and to try to get a proper definitive result not marred by controversy. If those uninvolved editors adjudicating here feel that Sceptre's close was correct then please read Talk:Gráinne_Ní_Mháille#Proper_Move_Proposals for why it was anything but. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Recording here that Mabuska has attempted to circumvent this discussion on the talk page; I note that WP:FORUMSHOP is policy. Please desist from discussing the same thing in multiple venues; everyone else, watchlist the page and close the discussion as many times as need be. thanks, ——Serial ^# 13:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already noted it here before your close and explained what it was for. It was regardless of the result of this discussion as a proper non-controversial result abiding by Wikipedia policy needs to be reached. As it is it stands to highlight the many problems of the move. It sets a dangerous precedent were unsubstantiated opinion and an improper close and move can carry the day ignoring long standing Wikipedia policies. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting opinion! The discussion over the move had started on the talkpage and was in fact still continuing there. Why it is suddenly forum shopping is unclear. Beside that, no one told me, the filer of the complaint, that the discussion had moved from WP:AN to this forum. The Banner talk 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (Not uninvolved) , per Mabuska's extensive comments. TL;DR: Editors who supported the move did so on the basis of their opinions. Those who opposed did so on the basis of policy. No consensus to move could properly be derived from that. PepperBeast (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The MOS does not override COMMONNAME. After discounting the support !votes that are are full of Irish nationalism and assertions that 'it's her name' (neither of which have any basis in Wikipedia polcies), what remains of the Support arguments aren't enough to counter the strong basis in polcy presented by the Opposers. Iffy★Chat -- 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved), after reading the RM and then reading the close a second time this seems a very well thought out and purposely well-analyzed close. Compared to the one or two minute closers (all too common and saw one today that seemed wrongly closed) this close hits all the high notes and then explains each one. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Weighing the "establishment" and "accuracy" tests specified by WP:AT §UE and §COMMONNAME, I see no consensus that Grace is sufficiently established in English RS to be considered the common name, and weak consensus that Gráinne is more accurate. While RexxS participated with a comment, not a !vote, I am also considering that a point towards consistency of Gráinne (as used in article titles) and weakly against Grace being well established as equivalent to Gráinne. I'll also note that §CRITERIA specifies that where the choice between two titles (and how well they fulfil the 5 criteria) is not clear, a more local consensus is sufficient. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Any fair reading of the relevant sources makes this outcome not only incorrect but bizarre. If we have any pretensions of being taken seriously as an encyclopedia we should be taking our cue from DIB, DNB or the various books published on the subject. For that reason Gráinne would be a sensible compromise, as long as it was followed in the lede by something like "commonly known as Grace O'Malley". Trying to project madey-up Irish language names onto historical figures for ideological reasons isn't only against several Wikipedia policies it is also "bad craic" to borrow the vernacular. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(good idea, have made this edit after reading your note, don't know if it'll stick though) Just re-read the close and am still looking at it as consensus to move, so a close to move seems within the range of a reasonable decision, which is the topic under discussion here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Madey-up Irish language names" is, quite simply, ignorance on the scale of "curry my yoghurt". I fear that, in so much as some support of the move came from people supportive of revival of the Irish language, some opposition has clearly come from people opposed to said language revival, which is something that I also had to take into account when making the closure. It's okay to argue, for clear policy based reasons, towards one title or another, but saying that an Irish-language name for a woman from the deepest parts of the Gaeltacht is "madey-up" doesn't really inspire confidence in someone's neutrality. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love how Bring back Daz Sampson thinks the Irish language, the majority language in Ireland until around 1800, and that Gráinne would have spoken, is "madey-up". Eilidhmax (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Madey-up"? Really? That's pretty low. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think it is this name that is madey-up, not the language (which is obviously real). Contrary to what has been alleged I have no bias against Gaelic and I am not a backward idiot like Gregory Campbell. Hopefully that has dealt with the straw man and the ad homs. The fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that O'Malley used "Gráinne Ní Mháille" and claims that "it's what she would have wanted" are not only irrelevant and speculative but pretty silly considering she is a pirate queen who has been dead for 400+ years. It is a fantasy. Look, if you want this novel, fringe name to gain wider currency then the correct process is to write a book or article of your own and then hope that eventually a preponderance of quality sources pick up that useage. At the moment - whatever any of us think about it - ALL the sources use Grace (or Gráinne) O'Malley and we have to reflect that. You should not be using Wikipedia to try and push things in a different direction. Even IMOS specifically states: "Where a subject has both an English and an Irish version of their name, use the English version if it is more common among English speakers". If I went to the Joan of Arc article, for example, and tried this nonsense I would be laughed out of town, and rightly so. Following this dubious precedent, our Joan of Arc article should be titled "Jehanne" (no surname). If I tried to argue that the overwhelming majority of quality, English language sources should be trampled over roughshod because "it's what she would have wanted" people would think I was potty! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst your comment was poorly worded and gave the wrong impression, I understand your point. Most likely like most people of the time she most likely could not read or write and would probably not even know whether Grace, Grainne, O'Malley or Ni Mhallie reflected her own name in Gaelic or English unless someone educated her on the matter. And on that if she could write, though most people then couldn't, she may have written her name differently as most people went with how they thought it should be spelt based on pronunciation, hence why contemporary English sources have so many different spellings of her name even in the same document. Indeed her surname if written by someone who knew how to write Irish would have been written as Máille not Mhaille. That is a neologism as it is based on modern Irish, when medieval figures are usually spelt using contemporary Irish. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to confusion on the matter is use of modern Irish for her name and others as well. Away from tbat speculation and waffle of mine, @Sceptre: has not responded to my post on why their decision was wrong to the point of discrediting Wikipedia and setting a bad precedent. Their closure did not address Wikipedia policy and guidelines but rather set out why they should be ignored based on their opinion rather than actual fact. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Mabuska, neologism is better than 'madey-up' which was not a well chosen phrase. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is full-on ridonkulous. Grainne was not illiterate. She was a member of the top social class. When she met the Queen of England, the two women conversed in Latin, the language of science, education, and diplomacy at the time, becuae Grainne didn't speak English and Elizabeth didn't speak Irish. That is not a description of an illiterate person. That is a description of a well-educated person. You might as well argue that Elizabeth I was illiterate and didn't know for sure what her own name was. We don't know exactly how Gráinne spelled her name, but the known 16th-century variants of Gráinne in 16th-century Irish documents are basically Gráinne, Grainne, Graine and Gráine. All that aside, even the least-literate people know what their names are, and Grainne's was not Grace. The argument here is about application of Wikipedia common name policy, not baseless speculation over whether a historical person knew what her own name was. PepperBeast (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepperbeast: Reading and writing are not pre-requisites for learning another language though obviously it greatly helps. Literate Gaelic women medieval/early-modern Ireland were very rare, which means if Grace really could read and write and in more than one language she was incredibly unique for her time adding to her legend, however she is believed to have had scribes pen her letters. Her second husband is also believed to be illiterate and he was in a better position in Gaelic culture to be otherwise. But yes the point is about the application of Wikipedia policy, which was ignored. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is none of us know. That's why we should go by what reliable sources say. With apologies to those who want to project romantic ideals onto her, my own guess is that O'Malley would regard this discussion as absurd and would have us all thrown into the sea. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Madey-up name" was indeed not a well chosen phrase. Neither was "like most people of the time she most likely could not read or write"... would ye listen to yourselves! What a pile of bias! We're not talking about the British royal family here, whose education was notoriously lacking until recently, but the Gaelic elite. I'd say Gráinne Mhaol's literacy was probably grand. But that's not the issue. Her name is. Neither Gráinne Ní Máille nor Gráinne Mhaol are in any way neologisms, as anyone with any knowledge of the subject would know. That aside - we've had a RM. We're now having a review in the proper place. After the AN/I and your third location to debate this were shut down. We've all contributed - some of us at considerable length - can we now leave it to others to have their say? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I stand by my comment as it is based on the facts surrounding the medieval/early-modern state of literacy (in regards to reading and writing) in Europe. Anyone with knowledge of the time would know that. My comment was about in general everywhere so there is no bias, so please stop making everything a green versus orange/Gaelic versus British issue as that has nothing to do with this. Also I never started or participated in the AN/I so what are you talking about?If we are to leave it for others to say then why did you come to this place in the first place to place an endorse considering you are an involved editor? I am an involved editor too however did not !vote, though maybe I should. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you haven't actually read the article you're commenting on, then? Ok... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but the the two sources you provide here are an undergraduate essay and some sort of theatre troupe on a whimsical RTE show... from 1976. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) PepperBeast more than adequately addresses Mabuska's assumtions. 2) My original participation above was at AN/I, not here, and was copied over to here by someone else, not me. 3) I fail to see what a relevance there is in a reference coming from 1976 when we're talking about someone who died 400 years ago, but whatevs; 4) It's RTÉ, not RTE. The fada is important. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article does include sources that she was contemporarily named "Gráinne Ní Mháille", give or take a síneadh fada; there's a general practice both off- and on-wiki when it comes to non-English orthography to follow common current practice (e.g. Beijing, not Peking). Sceptre (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have very trenchant views on the matter and are not above smearing those of us who have differing views as ignorant or prejudiced. That's fine as a participant in the 'cut and thrust' of this sort of contentious issue. I also accept I am probably equally partisan but in the other direction. But then, I didn't !supervote to truncate the discussion. You now have multiple independent editors up in arms. It absolutely screams WP:BADNAC. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have literally said her name is "madey-up", despite the use of several variants of it in the contemporary texts and extensive references, so yes, I'd say your self-assessment is accurate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how comparing the use of the síneadh fada to the use of pinyin romanisation makes me "trenchant"? Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. <uninvolved> Apologies to the closer, who made a very close call, if incorrectly. This article should be titled either Gráinne O'Malley or Grace O'Malley, IMHO. So this difficult decision should be reversed and the RM should probably be relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The close reads like a supervote, and the discussion clearly did not reach a consensus to move the article. The closer stated that they are ignoring COMMONNAME, but that is the most crucial consideration for an article title. Also, this was a bad non-admin closure; non-admins generally should not handle very close calls like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (involved). Adding my formal stance on the matter after checking up to see if involved editors are allowed to !vote on it. My (extensive) reasoning as already noted above is given here. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Just to note that involved endorser Bastun has just posted a notification at the Ireland WikiProject of this discussion on whether this was a correct move or not. If my (then) new discussion at the actual article's talk page (which I notified this place of before you closed it) was determined to be forum shopping, then is this not canvassing? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking Serial Number that? And no, it's not canvassing, as it's completely neutrally worded. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bastun is allowed to post at the noticeboard but they should do so neutrally. They did not do so, and should be cautioned wrt contuing this approach. ——Serial ^# 15:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think removing one editors comment as it removed yours is proper procedure. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the comment, so both comments can be viewed. Iffy★Chat -- 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is canvassing either, although the high-handed instruction to stop using using the article talk page was ridiculous. It has forced some discussion here which would certainly be better placed there. It also looked like an attempt to dominate and control the debate. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing when an Irish editor of a strong de-Anglicising viewpoint posts a notice at the Ireland WikiProject where one would expect to find like minded editors and yet not post to the other four wikiprojects the article in question is a part of. A neutral manner would have been to post to all five projects as they are all equally entitled to a notification Mabuska ^(talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose you're right, it would have been optimal for Bastun to notify the others as well. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) If people who were involved are going to weigh in again, that will clearly stack the !vote. But, in light of opposers reiterating their opinions, I shall have to reiterate my belief that it is the right decision. I have no stick in the fire on the English/Irish debate, I live in Mexico, (though I did once visit Ireland). I came to the discussion from a conversation about colonization and the scientific study of how people are marginalized or consolidate their power by use of names. I repeat what I said there: Commonname says it "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". It does not say it is required. The academic trend is to move away from westernized renaming (Europeanisation) and use native/local naming schemes, which is clearly evident in that newer sources give name variations for this person, which older sources did not. Wikipedia is not a leading trendsetter, but rather follows the change which sources dictate, thus, our own trend in situations such as this is to use pertinent names, Thailand, not Siam; Lola Álvarez Bravo, not Lola Alvarez and certainly not Lola Bravo. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Just to point out considering your edit summary... it was actually move supporters who came here and started endorsing first. Personally all of us involved editors voicing endorses and overturns should be ignored by the closer of this discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine as an opinion, which you're obviously entitled to. But in policy terms it boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, with a dollop of WP:IAR insofar as it tries to wish away the overriding importance of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IMOS. It also fails to address the issue at hand, which is the suitability or lack thereof involved in the premature closure by a non-admin who clearly has a strong emotional attachment (or 'skin in the game', to put it another way). I also think place names are something of a faulty analogy because they have 'official' names which get rubber stamped by the United Nations (or whoever) and this then percolates down into the sources. In a way I know where you are coming from. Believe me, I'm on twitter myself and no slouch in the 'woke' stakes; everything else being equal I'd go with the trendy 'anti-colonial' terminology every time. I just think in this particular case we have an excellent corpus of WP:RSs to draw from and they're still pretty much as one. We have to look at the established 'big beasts' of the subject area, guys like your Jonathan Bardons and your Anne Chambers'. I'm afraid the sources would have to take precedence, no matter what our hearts tell us O'Malley would have wanted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commonname is policy, and it does not state that the English name must be used, as pointed out by the closer. IMOS is a guideline and takes no precedent over other guidelines like Identity. Not sure why you say "my" Bardon or Chambers, as I already stated I wasn't Irish. IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT is not relevant. It did not enter my mind. I reviewed policies on naming and evaluated the close based on the rationale it stated. I totally agree with you Mabuska on the involved/uninvolved comments here. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved). Normally, I would advise against NACs for very contested/borderline type decisions, however, Sceptre's close was considered, well thought out and well-articulated. They are a very experienced editor. There is no "schoolbook solution" here (otherwise, these threads would be much smaller), however, I am not sure that an admin-closure would produce a higher quality close, and it only suggests that Sceptre should be an admin. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) A reasonable and well-thought out close by a very experienced former admin.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved) I would like to echo the sentiments of SusunW above regarding a general move away from anglicised names towards those more reflective of the originating culture, and the close was considered. Smirkybec (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When will de main page of this Wikipedia be corrected? It states: "This Wikipedia is written in English." Seeing this discussion, that seems to be incorrect! The Banner talk 16:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (uninvolved): While MOS:IMOS NAMES is a strong argument, the strength of the arguments in favor of moving are also strong especially. The closer correctly identified SusunW's argument as strong. MOS:IDENTITY had a lot of discussion with a wide audience behind it. In this case I believe WP:CONLIMITED is an issue for MOS:IMOS NAMES. PaleAqua (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer did not clearly err, and most of the debate above is relitigation for reasons to use this name or that one or that other one, not addressing the WP:MV matters. For those convinced the article title is wrong, traditionally we give 6 months of "give it a rest" time before doing another RM on the same article, and that's a good chunk of time in which to try to craft a more persuasive argument. MV doesn't care what evidence or argument you can make now; it cares about whether the consensus then reflected in the original discussion was properly assessed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus <uninvolved>. Completely wrong close. First they concede the current title is the COMMONNAME but dismiss because of Pyotr Tchaikovsky. You know, the most common name used in English to refer to the Russian composer. Second, whole thing is presented as a super vote, not as a reading of the discussion. And as noted above, the opposition was based on policy; support was based on JDLI and invented policy, like “most appropriate name”. What the h? —-В²C ☎ 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of curiosity to all those who are endorsing on the grounds of Sceptre's reasoning to close, I would like to know how Sceptre's close and SusanW's reasoning (credited as being an important factor) at the move discussion actually took WP:MOSIDENTITY into account when not one source was provided by those backing a move to meet the criteria stated at the policy? It is very perplexing. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). I do not read anything like a clear consensus, and there was no imperative to make a decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over 2 weeks since any comments, I'd suggest someone uninvolved be brave and try to come up with a decision and close on this. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (uninvolved).' generally not in favour of no-admin closes for borderline calls, but the close was well done - as noted above "well thought out and well-articulated. They are a very experienced editor. There is no "schoolbook solution" here (otherwise, these threads would be much smaller), however, I am not sure that an admin-closure would produce a higher quality close, and it only suggests that Sceptre should be an admin" - ditto. Note also the issues SMcCandlish has raised. Given Gráinne Ní Mháille (c. 1530 – c. 1603) relation to Irish history, cannot see that an Anglicised name has any benefit at all to the readers which underlines the soundness of the close. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Aye, as the weeks and months go by, and the spirit of the pirate queen awaits the decision, Sinead and Kiera stop by to entertain us. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1978 NHL Amateur Draft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer has not identified any opposition based in guidelines or sources; just says he doesn't see consensus. I'll expand below. Involved. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move (I am the original proposer). See the more extensive discussion about the reasons behind the objections at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS_might_need_revision. Basically, Djsasso interprets this local sports convention as saying to cap all event names, even if sources don't, which is completely contrary to the main MOS:CAPS guideline. No other reasonable objection has been identified by closer after I asked him. One editor 18abruce mentioned that some specialist hockey sources cap it, and claimed that the Britannica Book of Year does, which is not true; but nobody argued that a majority of sources cap it, much less the supermajority of independent reliable sources called for in MOS:CAPS; nor did anyone argue it's something "that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence" as WP:NCCAPS suggests. Another editor, Kaiser matias, suggested that it would be better to check usage in contemporary newspapers rather than in books, so I showed him that newspapers never capped it; he didn't come back and retract his opposition after that as he should have. Closer has not said whether he noticed any arguments in opposition that are based in guidelines or sources, after I asked him; he asked back what argument I found not compelling, which I had already discussed there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the other discussion, I copy my summary of opposing arguments:

• 18abruce said some specialist hockey sources cap it; and that the Britannica Book of the Year caps it (which is not true, as far as I can tell, but surely they don't cap entry draft).
• Djsasso argues, without support in sources, that they are proper names, and that MOS:SPORTCAPS means we should cap names of events even if sources don't.
• Kaiser matias says "per 18abruce and DJSasso", and then suggests checking old newspapers, not just books. He didn't respond after I showed that newspapers never capped it.
• GoodDay just says "as we have Year Entry Draft articles." This is not relevant here, and can be fixed after we get beyond this one.
• Sabbatino simply says "Oppose since this is the correct name for the event. Anyone who will try to change my mind – do not bother."

If there's anything like a good argument in there, I'm not seeing it. These oppose arguments should be given little or no weight, compared to the 6 support arguments based in MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Encourage the closer to speedily expand on their closing statement, before this is locked in to months long review. It was closed with "No consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for the moves proposed. User:BD2412 T 04:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)".[reply]

While any "no consensus" close of a contested discussions is defensible, I know this closer as occasionally having too high an expectation on others to see what he sees as "clear".

Closing statements should be sufficiently informative to be understood on casual reading. On this close, I can too easily imagine an inexperienced closer using exactly the same words on the basis of a !vote count. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to expand it much. "There is a clear absence of consensus for the moves proposed, and a permissible argument has been made that NHL annual drafts constitute discrete sports events". That is the crux of the issue, and it is subject to the consensus of those discussing the question. The counterargument boils down to Dicklyon's statement in the first exchange, "I don't think the draft was a sporting event". Not thinking that doesn't invalidate opinions or arguments to the contrary. BD2412 T 03:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And disagreement on whether the names of discrete sports events can be considered proper names? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, good close. This is a MOS fight in the messy space of proper nouns versus proper noun phrases, aka proper names. Not only was there not a consensus, I think a consensus was definitely not going to develop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse So you are essentially arguing that the closer should have ignored the MOS which indicates capitalize them. And you think other peoples arguments are weak when you really seem to be making an "I don't like what the MOS says so do it my way" argument? Subsections of the MOS expand on the more general advice contained in the guideline. So people arguing that MOS:SPORTSCAPS allows for it have no less weak an argument than anyone arguing about the general MOS:CAPS guidance. If anything they have a stronger one because the subsections are meant to clarify the guideline in specific areas. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. <uninvolved> Definitely no consensus, and supporters were unable to overcome the fact that under SPORTSCAPS, names of sporting events such as draft meetings that are held equably each year are proper names and should begin with uppercase letters. These events are exempt from the ever-growing, tsunami-like effort to lowercase everything from Soup to Nuts. These annual events are clearly proper noun phrases. Good call! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As I've mentioned before, if @Dicklyon: had wished to open an RM on both the NHL Amateur & Entry Draft articles? I would've been neutral on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume they didn't put the newer version of the name up because that one does have almost exclusive use capitalized which would weaken the argument its not a proper noun. Google. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"NHL entry draft" is also often lowercase in sources, but not by such an overwhelming proportion as "amateur draft". See for example the Britannica Book of the Year link I gave above. We can get to that next. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But "2020 NHL Entry Draft" etc is not. I posted a link above from google news. It is of course just a quick search. But going through the first 40 pages of results there isn't a single use of it with a year with it uncapitalized. The use of the year is what makes the difference, it turns it from a generic phrase into the name of an event. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move, per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS: If sources do not overwhelmingly consistently capitalize something, WP doesn't capitalize it. If in doubt, do not capitalize. It's the same answer for every topic. American football sports isn't magically special and different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC); revised: 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move—SMcCandlish says exactly what I'd have said. Tony (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hopefully you would have said hockey instead of football though. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Derp. For some reason I thought this was about the NFL, not NHL. Just goes to show that exact topic doesn't matter, the same principle applies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Non-participant. The close was correct -- there was no consensus -- and this is not the place to re-litigate the initial requested move. The closing admin of this move review should also be aware of potential canvassing by the nominator [1]. Calidum 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move (I commented in support of the move) The evidence presented for the move clearly indicates that the titles are not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" and do not meet the criteria of the general advice per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. The crux appears to be an interpretation of "event" in the context of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. However, this is irrelevant unless one assumes that SPORTSCAPS is an exception to the overarching and ultimate advice of MOS:CAPS (of which it is part). Such a proposition was speculated (ie made without evidence) during the move discussion. Any guideline should be taken as a whole and not read in isolation. The paragraph that follows the one in question commences: The above rules of thumb should also be applied. A rule of thumb, by its very definition, does not override the more rigorous criteria established by MOS:CAPS and is not an exception to same. If there was any doubt as to the meaning, intent or applicability of SPORTSCAPS, the closer should have deferred to the ultimate guidance given by MOS:CAPS. The evidence does not support capitalisation when assessed against the criteria of this ultimate guidance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the consensus in the aforementioned RM, was to leave it as NHL Amateur Draft. I do acknowledge however, that there is indeed an ever growing trend of de-capitalising throughout Wikipedia. Certainly not the first time, I've seen these types of big content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Previously uninvolved. The WP:MOS being complex and filled with caveats and judgment calls, whether these articles should be renamed or not in some ideal world, the close was a correct reading of consensus. CNMall41 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this will be closed as endorse, or no consensus. Since the key reason seems to be the misunderstanding at MOS:SPORTCAPS, and since the discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS_might_need_revision indicates a strong consensus to fix it, I've gone ahead and made the suggested edit to clarify that it doesn't mean to cap things not capped in sources. I expect that a new RM will be needed, as this change is too late to affect the previous RM close or review. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A change that is going to affect a very large number of articles like that one is going to affect should probably be an RfC and advertised to the various sports projects and not just changed by a couple editors on that talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reality the change just codifies the standard practice on Wikipedia -- use caps if reliable sources do so. Calidum 15:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We cannot have a narrowly topical guideline written and dominated by a wikiproject trying to WP:POLICYFORK from major site-wide guidelines and policies on style and article titles. That's not permissible per WP:CONLEVEL policy, so the language at SPORTCAPS has to be fixed, whether or not Djsasso likes Dicklyon stepping up to do it. The amount of WP:DRAMA this illegitimate forking of advice has caused is already more than enough. And citing the "alternative version" in such disused MoS subpage that virtually no one watchlists wasn't ever legitimate either, and the closer did not take this into account. Let me quote from WP:MOS's own lead: "This primary [MoS] page is supported by further detail pages [like SPORTCAPS] .... If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence. (Emphasis in original.) WP:OFFICIALNAME also militates against the closer giving weight to such arguments as the NHL's own typography.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and move (uninvolved): The arguments for moving were stronger. The arguments against mostly were based on MOS:SPORTSCAPS but did not have sources showing that the page title was a proper name. PaleAqua (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to move. This appears to have been nose-counting rather than discussion reading. The most critical question on such an issue is "What do reliable sources say and do about this?". In this case, those proposing the move made a clear case that the majority of reliable sources do not capitalize the title, and that was never refuted or even really challenged. If that's what most sources do, that's what we ought to do too. That was a much stronger argument than any other presented and does not seem to have been weighted accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]