Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January

< 2013 December	Move review archives	2014 February >

2014 January

The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

Closer decided "no consensus" based entirely on counting !votes rather than evaluating the strength of the arguments based on policy and guidelines. The closing statement explicitly states "opinions nearly 50%/50% after 48 days" as the basis for "no consensus". There was no hint of evaluating arguments. This was confirmed when I brought this concern to his attention on the closer's talk page[1], with statements such as "I saw the same roughly equal mixture of opinions for both sides and no consensus reached".

We don't determine community consensus by counting the !votes or opinions of the small fraction of the community that happens to be involved in any one discussion. Instead, to determine community consensus, we must look at, and evaluate, the strength of the arguments on each side, and decide which side, if any, has stronger arguments based on policy, guidelines and convention. There is no evidence that such evaluation was done at all in this case. B2C 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there's a consensus there and the closer missed it? I don't see it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dicklyon (talk · contribs), the closer missed the consensus favoring the move. First, the main oppose argument - that the movie is not clearly more notable than the book - is based on the wrong assumption that the book and movie have the same title. Second, while 3 opposers acknowledge the difference in titles, their claim that the book is commonly referred by the movie's title is not supported by any evidence, much less citations to reliable sources. Finally, your interpretation of the WP:TITLE words you quoted would preclude the use of an ambiguous title for almost any WP:PRIMARYTOPIC article, which clearly has no consensus support. So, there is no strong policy-based argument opposing the move, though there is one supporting it (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --B2C 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The main argument of the "oppose" camp was that the film does not enjoy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, not least because the book is very often called by the same name. In other words, the !votes were grounded in policy and guidelines. Note: I participated in this debate, and I !voted to oppose, so I'm biased, but from looking at the arguments as a whole I don't see any way that anyone could possibly have called this as consensus to move. — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no evidence provided, much less citations to reliable sources, of the claim that "the book is very often called by the same name [as the movie title]", and only a tiny minority even made that claim. That's not an argument "grounded in policy and guidelines". That's WP:JDLI. --B2C 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - Clearly no-consensus here. Granted consensus is not just vote counting and it would have been nice to seen a little more details on the closing rational. ~~That said, I also don't see the step where the closer was asked to provide more details about their close before bringing it here. See step 1.~~ PaleAqua (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Step 1 (as noted above): [2]. I would love to see the closer, or anyone else for that matter, provide details about the rationale for closing this discussion as "no consensus" that is based on evaluating the arguments, not counting the !votes. See also my previous comment, to Dicklyon. --B2C 00:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry missed that link and was mislead by page move archiving after following closer's talk page link from RM. PaleAqua (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's what I figured and why I just added another note referring to that archived section on the closer's talk page. Still waiting for a rationale on why no policy-based consensus was found in that discussion... --B2C 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Evidence is important for controversial requested moves. Be it known - I supported the move. Red Slash 09:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just happen to have looked at this MRV request as I have a MRV request below. I am not familiar with this RM, but I understand and agree with user B2C's points about how to define a "consensus". This is a basic and very import issue. In someones minds, even >50% may not be enough for "consensus" and they seem to seek "unanimity" or "an overwhelming majority". They forgot to or failed to evaluate the strength of the arguments based on policies and guidelines.--Lvhis (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – not the best close, but correct in that there is no consensus to make this page's title ambiguous with the other 12 topics that could use the same title if it weren't ambiguous. It would be a travesty to endorse B2C's extreme interpretation of policy that he has been a contentious author of, over a majority objection. Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are conveniently ignoring the fact that no evidence from reliable sources was provided in the original discussion, nor in this one, demonstrating that the title in question is ambiguous with even one other use, let alone 12 other uses. You're just stating that title is ambiguous with 12 other uses as if it's a given. It's not. That's the key issue, and you, like the closer, are not even addressing it. --B2C 07:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, such research might lead you to count fewer than 12 of the ones I counted at The Wizard of Oz. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, clearly there are many other uses that are ambiguous with "The Wizard of Oz", but all are relatively minor/unknown uses compared to the 1939 movie. You don't question that, do you? --B2C 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are we supposed to re-argue the RM here, or just review the close? Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Review the close, of course. But you seemed to simply compare the result with what you believed the result should be, and endorsed because it was the same. You did not seem to review the close at all. The fact that there was no indication that the arguments in question were evaluated at all, bolstered by talk page comments that indicate !votes were simply counted (roughly), is not sufficient reason to at least ask the closer to provide such evaluation, or re-open and ask someone else to close who is willing to do the required evaluation? --B2C 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands

Closer did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing this requested move because

Consensus has been reached that current title "Senkaku Islands" is not in line with regarding wp policies and guidelines, and this is the base for the RM and this does be relevant to the purpose of the request. Otherwise, there is no need to have such RM at all. Closer should evaluate this before he decided to close it and how to close it, but unfortunately he did not, so this is the 1st defect of this closure.
One key point in closing judgement that "title of "Pinnacle Islands" also enjoys some support in this discussion, there is likewise no consensus in favor of it" was not in line with the fact of the discussion. The fact is although the initial proposed alternative title of this RM was "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", as the RM process is a consensus building exercise, some users changed their initial views and agreed that "Pinnacle Islands" can be a good title if a slashed dual name technically is hardly facilitated. The main reason in discussion is this is an English name and currently still being used. The two local non-English name "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" have equal "POV" problem and either one cannot override WP:POVTITLE, their "most common use" in English have been canceled by each other, one should not compare the "Pinnacle Islands" with either of the two non-English names in terms of "most common use". One should consider what said in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, but closer did not mention these at all in closing statement. Even looking at the arguments or comments about "against ..." from this "tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community", compared with "against retention of 'Senkaku Islands'" or with "against moving to 'Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands' or 'Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands'", the "against moving to 'Pinnacle Islands'" is the least one, which were from 6 users of 15 participants and 4 of these 6 were those who insisted on retention of "Senkaku Islands" but only 2 users who oppose to use the current title "Senkaku Islands".
The closing sentence "the article(s) will continue to use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", because that title has been stable since 2010 ..." is not in line with the argument history. The so called "stable" is purely due to forced "move protection" but dispute on it never stopped. The conclusion that the current title is "stable" cannot be stood. The current title has damaged and will keep damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia.

--Lvhis (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (no consensus). Clearly, strongly, contested. Consensus has not yet been found. Finding a consensus here will take some work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Agreed. Don't see how there is any consensus here yet. A non consensus close does not prohibit future RMs; there would be normally nothing wrong with a new opening RM with some of the other options that came up during the discussion. However with the long running dispute and arbcom case, taking things slow here is probably best. PaleAqua (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was one of the first in that discussion to recommend "Pinnacle Islands" should be considered, and there was some support for that, but nothing near a consensus. That may still happen in a future discussion, but I think this one was closed correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per User:Jonathunder. I think for an RM to be closed as a third solution, different from the current title and the original proposal, there would have to be an even clearer demonstration of support than even for a regular RM. Clearly there were very many voices specifically opposed to the Pinnacle Islands solution in this instance, so it was right to call it as no consensus. If you want to test the waters for the Pinnacle Islands solution, I don't think there's anything stopping you from opening that as a new move request. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close with Six Month Moratorium Unfortunately given the vitriol/hysteria of the discussion any concenses for change is most likely the result of a particularly aggressive (and temporary) campaigning. I would block any move for six months to a year and just hope that the well poisoners simply move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014

This IP user did not signed for his/her input which inserted in between others, and talked in a tone as s/he is an admin(?).--Lvhis (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close and I do not think that another RM should be made for that page for at least six months. While consensus can change, with contentious article titles such as this it does not change overnight. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - The RM concerns a complex naming issue which has been frequently in dispute for a long time. It needs more editors involved in order to establish the real consensus, therefore a longer period of discussion should be held. STSC (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (involved editor)[reply]

You mean it needs an WP:RfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting the RM. STSC (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that another another seven days won't be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least give it a try. Until there's a bigger overall participation in the process, I would find it hard to accept the "no consensus" verdict. STSC (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This RM was open for much longer than a week and it was advertised elsewhere (here for example). Traditionally such contentious moves are left alone for at least six months so that there is time for a new consensus to form. If another RM is opened in the near future (under six months from the previous close), and I am made aware of it, I will close the request with "no move" reason "disruptive request" under the arbcom sanctions governing this topic. -- PBS (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a basic and important point needs to be clarified: what is the correct definition of "consensus" in Wikipedia? I learned more from your comment there. How to decide if a consensus has existed or not? Shall a consensus have to mean supported by unanimity or an overwhelming majority? People may know the correct answer theoretically, but may be lost in some practical case. In this case, consensus reached for "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines". If this consensus existed, closer should give some more time for building up consensus for which alternative name should be. In this case moving to "Pinnacle Islands" seemed reach Rough Consensus" already.--Lvhis (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it did. I suggest raising the question on the talk page, but not yet in a formal RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When correct definition or judgment on "consensus" in Wikipedia is not clarified, disagreeing that it (consensus) existed cannot justify it did not reached. --Lvhis (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RM should have been re-listed to attract more inputs. If this RM is not getting a relist then I may start a new RM regardless. STSC (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critique Given how little traffic those pages had and how small the list of participants is, it's stupid to think a couple weeks will generate a decent amount of participation from 3rd parties. Besides, it's Christmas month and a lot of people have family lives, product releases, exams, etc to worry about. :)

What's worth noting is that admins were all too eager to close the RFC and all too eager to tolerate bad behaviour by Benlisquare and Phoenix. Someone should really dig out Sandstein and those other admins and give them a whipping.... Just kidding - admins seldomly are held accountable for bad decisions. :)

But speaking of consensus... the original page appeared to be under that Pinnacle Island name (as far as I remember at least). I don't remember there's any consensus on that move. It's just someone stealthily moving that before anyone noticed. But whoops! Sorry for that little fact-checking. :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured: This MRV request was not concise enough and now is restructured here: The defect of this closure is 1)closer claimed that he did not evaluate if there was a consensus on "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines" because he thinks "it is not relevant for the purpose of the request" but actually such evaluation is very relevant and important. 2)According to the right definition of "consensus" in Wikipedia, the consensus said in "1)" did exist, and closer should have carefully and impartially evaluated if consensus on "Pinnacle Islands" had reached or roughly reached, but closer's evaluation on this was obviously taking one weak side by ignoring the other strong side, and made such evaluation like an involved discussion. Or the least the closer should have given some more time to let the process of building up consensus on this be finished. 3)if a consensus on "current title is not in line with regarding policies and guidelines" exists, the current title cannot be recognized as "stable" anymore. Comment: Re-List or starting a new RM is reasonable.--Lvhis (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know... you guys can simplify the problem by just proposing to revise the original Pinnacle -> Senkaku naming that took place god knows how many years ago. The way, it'd take a consensus to support that previous rename, don't you think? Given how conservative this consensus system Wikipedia has, I am pretty sure there would be no consensus if there's an RFC on that. There - simplified that little logic problem for y'all. You're all very welcomed! :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]