2018 February

Vikings (TV documentary series)

Vikings (TV documentary series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Given the controversy regarding this discussion, I think this should not have been closed by a non-admin. Stronger weight should have been given to the arguments that were supported by the guideline, which admittedly was changed while the discussion was taking place. The close should also have taken into account the result of the move at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018. To be fair, the whole discussion has been a mess. Given the recent change in the WP:NCTV guideline, which happened while the discussion was taking place, I also don't think any prejudice should have been given regarding a future move, as the guideline now expressly mentions that genre should not be used. --woodensuperman 09:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that the NCTV guideline change was addressed by the nominator a week before the RM closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the closing editor does not seem to have taken this into account in the close summary. --woodensuperman 11:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although with an option missed. The close was correct as to not moving to "TV series", but it seems the discussion was reaching a consensus, before the close, to drop "TV" and shorten the name to "Vikings (documentary series)" or just "Vikings (documentary)". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "(TV series)" was never on the table, as other TV series called "Vikings" exist. There was no consensus for the last option either, and this would have made the article title even more at odds with our naming conventions. --woodensuperman 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I would prefer a truncated dab over “TV documentary series,” I have to say I don’t think we were nearing consensus for it; there was only minority support super late in the discussion, and this after a WP:SNOWBALL for that very proposal. I also disagree with not moving to “[year TV series” (see my comment below). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From my read, there were very strong policy-based arguments for moving it to “[year] TV series,” and primarily WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments against. The closer did not seem to take this into account, nor the fact that the historical drama is currently located at Vikings (2013 TV series) (as per standard naming conventions) and not Vikings (TV drama series). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page:

  *@67.14.236.50: First, the close is not arbitrary sole "exception to the consensus [against disambiguating by genre]" as your question tried to allude. Disambiguating by genre is not the only result of the RFC, the following clause is also in the result:

  "If this [referring to (TV series) disambiguator] does not resolve the ambiguity, a consensus of editors on the article's talk page should determine what additional disambiguation qualifier is appropriate, on a per-article basis." Source

  • On that article, "(TV series) disambiguator" is not sufficient as there's already historical drama with similar name. Therefore pro-move, bare !votes like this has little weight in consensus determination.
  • There was move request closed with clear opposition against move Only 3 weeks ago.
  • You started another RM earlier, after it garnered substantial opposes you withdraw so as to "propose another".
  • Then you started another RM. It was relisted twice and the discussion went moot, the last comment before my close was yours on February 2, my close was on February 8, i.e 6 days later. I perused the entire discussion and each side has fair points but I didn't see consensus for move. Before writing this reply, I reviewed the discussion again and I still stand by my close. if you still believe I am wrong, or this explanation is not enough, or you just don't agree, please request for a review at the appropriate venue. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Please note that the “clear opposition” he refers to consisted of erroneous claims that a “TV series” is by definition a scripted drama. (@Ammarpad: please feel free to revert this comment if you object to my quoting you.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump (closed)

Vicksburg

Vicksburg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Throughout this discussion there were 6 arguments supporting the move and 4 opposed. No evidence that the oppositions are more convincing than the supports (one of them appears to be a version of wp:OTHERSTUFF.) Consensus seems to have established that the Mississippi city is the primary topic. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You should've Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed..... Anyhow, 6-4 is generally below what is called a consensus if you're going by vote-counting. Looking at the arguments, after the siege of vicksburg was brought up and discussed, people were mostly opposed, and other than kenneth no one argued against that despite a relist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems from below that you think that consensus is just a majority; generally taken to be ~2/3. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: No I don't, see below. I just don't see how the four oppositions are significantly more convincing than the supports. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. –I would've close it as such if I were the closer too. You claimed one oppose is WP:OTHERSTUFF but you failed to mention that the first three support !votes are bare assertions without convincing argument. If we discount that one delete !vote you're not fine with, then we we've to discount these 3 support !votes equally, and that will take us to (ironically) 3/3 !votes, thus perfecting "no consensus" close from double fronts; both on arguments forwarded and vote count. This is also helpful guide on your view on page views. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good decision – in a few months editors may continue attempting to achieve consensus as is usual when the outcome is "no consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus). If, after a couple of months, you nominate again, try to make a better nomination statement. The advice at Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion#Advice_on_renominating applies equally to this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natchez

Natchez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Throughout this discussion, there were a total of six users in favor of moving the page to the proposed title, and five opposed to doing so. While this is not based on vote, I don't see how the oppositions have more weight than the support. Both the statistics and the discussion seem to agree that the Mississippi city is the primary topic, but not by an overwhelming margin. While there were certainly more arguments given in opposition to this move, I don't know that that means that they have more weight. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comments. First, I wasn’t contacted before the start of this review, but I would not have chosen to reopen the discussion in this case. The discussion had already been relisted, and no comments had been made in the section for about five days. Second, I do not believe that the discussion demonstrated a consensus in favor of moving the page; thus it would have been improper to close the discussion as a move. If a discussion of the individual arguments is necessary, then it is not clear from the discussion that the city is primary with respect to either criterion from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (i.e., 1) a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, and 2) a topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). On point 1, there was no consensus that Natchez, Mississippi was “much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all other topics combined” to be what was meant by Natchez, as demonstrated by the variety of interpretations of the pageview analysis, regardless of whether the pageviews for the parkway are disregarded. On point 2, though the city has a long history, Natchez people and Natchez language are also topics of significant long-term notability and educational value. Finally, the nomination seems to misinterpret the guidelines for moving pages and/or the rationale for the close. A close of "no consensus" does not indicate that "the oppositions have more weight than the support." Rather, because there was no clear consensus to move the page, the status quo was retained pending establishment of a new consensus. Dekimasuよ! 07:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by involved editor: I'm confused as to the rationale for contesting the closure of the move request. Based on their words above, Bneu2013 seems to be interpreting the closure as a firm not moved, but it seems fairly clear that Dekimasu did not find a consensus in either direction.--Aervanath (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse obviously; people are mixed on whether it is the primary topic and so no consensus is clearly the correct close. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This user seems to not understand (or not agree) with any closure not in their favor. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "No consensus" was the correct decision. This can be revisited in a few months if editors wish to continue garnering consensus to rename.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Hermann (closed)