Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 March Move review archives 2021 May >

2021 April

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tropical_Storm_Amanda–Cristobal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The discussion was closed as "inappropriate" and it "should have happened" as a part of the larger discussion above. I can't help that the National Hurricane Center took a while to get back to their emails. I don't think that overriding a forming consensus in a new discussion was the right move. The discussion with the closer took place at Closed RfM section on the article talkpage where the closer acknowledges this wasn't a mistake. NoahTalk 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As closer, let me explain my rationale. I went to close the above discussion, per a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. The requested move was predicated based off of the discussion being closed as "don't split". As I closed the discussion as split, per the consensus there, the requested move was redundant. In addition, the RM ran for seven days, so this was not an early closure. Any consensus in the RM, again, was predicated on the articles remaining merged. Also, I'd like to point out that User:LightandDark2000 !voted "Very Strong Oppose" in the discussion in which I closed, and he was the one who requested closure. This feels like forumshopping to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So should I start a new discussion to remerge them into an article that accurately represents them as two storms? We're left with impact that can't be separated out otherwise. People from the other discussion were supporting or neutral on the RM as a reasonable method of keeping related impact together. I can open a new merge and move discussion if that is needed. NoahTalk 15:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why the RM should not have been opened! The articles should be split. You shouldn't open a new discussion to merge them, just because you didn't like the outcome of the previous one. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the case at all. I'm not arguing for or against the RS arguments. The issue we have here is both storms caused significant impact in the same regions and it can't be separated out adequately. This would lead to significant portions of both articles being duplicates and they thus can't get GA or FA. NoahTalk 15:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the comments on the other discussion happened before the other argument even got presented in the RM. So it's basically screw the alt proposal because the original one already had consensus prior to that. It's not fair to just ignore a new argument and discussion on the matter due to the prior one. We should ask everyone which option they prefer best before doing anything so that way we settle it once and for all. NoahTalk 16:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, the second discussion shouldn't have been opened up either. Honestly, everything should've all been kept together in one place, which I'm sure was the original intent. But life isn't perfect, and things often get messy. But by your logic, we could also completely discount the second discussion, which would leave us at "no consensus", because the first discussion (which was actually running concurrently) had rendered it moot. Or, I could go even further and bypass ALL 3 DISCUSSIONS on that talk page because the original discussion (on the WPTC talk page) ended with a small consensus for a merger. Is this how we should handle things? Sorry, but no. Whether or not it was your intention, the closure looks like you ended up taking sides, which looks very bad. Remember that consensus can change. Discussions in progress should not be shuttered, especially when they are on how to handle an issue that remains very much relevant. The third discussion should either be reopened, or a fourth one should be quickly initiated to finally bring the issues discussed to a fitting conclusion. Because right now, the issue is not settled yet. We NEED to get this resolved. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a reopening and relisting of the third discussion, or the start of a new, fourth one to finally resolve the issue that was being discussed. A discussion was in progress, and regardless of the circumstances, it should have been allowed to progress to its own conclusion. As things stand right now, it appears that the closer took sides and shut down a subsequent discussion to protect a favored outcome, whether or not it was their intention. And that is unacceptable. Active discussions should not be shuttered (at least, in the vast majority of cases), regardless of the circumstances. The ongoing discussion was certainly NOT moot, and it wasn't concluding, either, and if it were to be closed as it was, there was actually a building consensus in favor of a single, renamed article. None of that can nor should be ignored. Please remember that consensus can and DOES CHANGE. And shutting down ongoing discussions is hardly appropriate. The closure of the third discussion was wholly inappropriate, and actually disrespectful to those who had commented in it, in a way. As such, I feel that this move review is needed. As I've said earlier, either the third discussion should be re-opened and allowed to naturally resolve on its own, or a fourth one should be immediately initiated (and left to progress by itself, I might add). BTW, I would appreciate it is those who were involved in the three discussions voice their opinions on this page as well. Especially those who commented on the third discussion. I hope it doesn't come to this, but if things continue to spiral out of control, I WILL get admin involvement to help settle things once and for all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LightandDark2000: you literally asked for a closure of the above discussion. I closed it in a way you didn't like, so now you're trying to de-legitimize that closure by claiming there was consensus elsewhere. No, there wasn't, the RM was predicated on the above discussion being closed as "keep merged", but it was not a consensus to do that in and of itself. I have no stake in this debate, I don't care if there is one or two articles, but you're attempting to game the system here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Just plain wrong. I asked for the closure of only the second discussion, not the entire Goddamn talk page! I never asked for the third one to be closed. And if I recall correctly, I did request that an uninvolved Administrator be the one to close it. Also, I would've respected any neutral closure that didn't impinge on active discussions; this one not only shut down the second one, but presumed an outcome (one that had yet to be settled) and shuttered a discussion in progress. I did not and do not intend to game the system. But if that's how you want to see things, that's your problem. Not mine. But that's beside the point. This is a mess, and it has to be resolved. It looks like a move review is our only option at this point. As I stated above, I would like to hear the thoughts of the other editors who commented on that talk page as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LightandDark2000: an administrator was not necessary, their closes aren't more binding than anyone else's. Please answer: how was it possible for the second discussion to be closed as anything other than "keep merged" and the third discussion not be made redundant? That RM was predicated on the results of the second discussion. It seems pretty clear to me that you would've disputed any close of the second discussion that wasn't "keep merged" - as you did in reverting the editor who implemented it, citing the RM. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally while I dont like the outcome of the RM, I thought that the closure seemed both ok and fair.Jason Rees (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I started a new discussion to ask everyone which option they thought was better for the article. I pinged everyone involved in both discussions. Hopefully that will make it clear what everyone really wants whether it be a split or move. NoahTalk 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole process seems to have been complicated by the discovery of relevant information (i.e. an clarifying email from an authoritative source) prior to formal closure of a preexisting discussion. A previous discussion closed as forming a consensus to split an article makes subsequent discussion about the name of the combined article moot. Elli may have abruptly ended an active discussion, but I don't think they were necessarily wrong. Rather than starting a fresh and separate move request, editors should have raised the new information on the unclosed split discussion and notified other involved editors. This would either reinforce the preexisting consensus to split or cause a shift to keep a unified article. If consensus changed to keep, then start the move discussion. At the very least, a split and move discussion should not be simultaneously active as was the case here. I see Hurricane Noah has gone ahead and started a new discussion (which has seen ample activity) which reboots the separate split and move discussions as option A and option B, and has pinged editors from the previous split discussion, including those who supported a split. In the interest of keeping healthy discussion alive, it seems optimal to centralize discussion there and keep the earlier page move discussion closed as moot. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 01:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MLB All-Star Game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

This move request had only two !votes, and should have been relisted rather than closed after one week, especially as one of the !votes was "per nom" and it was a non-admin close. The move rationale was "Full name basis does not reflect common usage", which I disagree with. If I had seen this RM, I would have opposed it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles says Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. The example it gives of that is NASA. Major League Baseball is not known primarily by the acronym "MLB". It would be reasonable to assume that people who are not so familiar with baseball may not know what "MLB" means. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who performed the closure, there was no opposition and the RM had hit the elapsed log, so there was no reason for me to decline the RM. You should have participated if you disagreed with the RM initiator, and it takes seven days before the listing goes to the elapsed log. Jerm (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Yes, you have a valid oppose reason. It would’ve changed the outcome, but this is move review, not a RM. Pointing out me not being an admin is irrelevant in a move review, and your disagreement on the outcome and trying to have it reopened is also not what a move review is for per WP:MRNOT. All of this because you missed out on the RM. I highly recommend you just start a new RM. It’s much faster than a move review. Jerm (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [uninvolved]. This one is kind of a close call. On the one hand, it's true that there's no minimum number of comments required before closing and that 7 days is usually considered a sufficient amount of time for most discussions. On the other hand, the close was done only a couple of hours after the second of only 2 comments and less than an hour after the 7 days had passed. The nom provided no evidence for the assertion that the title did not reflect common usage, the comments cited only an explanatory supplement, and the closer did not explain their decision. The fact that the second commenter even mentioned that "other pages containing the league's full name" existed should have been a clue that the proposed title might not reflect widespread consensus. Now an editor who missed the discussion points out a guideline that should have been taken into account before moving the article, which it appears was not taken into account. Although the closer did nothing obviously wrong in closing the discussion, now that reasonable, fact-based and guideline-based opposition has developed, it might be in the best interest of WP to relist the discussion. If not that, at least a new RM should be allowed. Station1 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen. <uninvolved> Favor endorsement of this, a good closure; however, there is in my opinion sufficient reason to toss THE BUREAUCRACY and give more time to see what if any other consensus might emerge. To be clear, while the closure was acceptable and good, I see no reason why the RM can't be reopened and relisted, a far better option than opening a new RM. Oh, and almost forgot, not discussing this on the closer's talk page first before skipping over to MRV sucks boulders! We may have avoided the MRV altogether! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen. There were far too few votes for this change to have been made. We have a standard of calling Major League Baseball by its full name in article titles. Songwaters (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, Station1, and Paine Ellsworth I'm going to revert my move and relist the RM. I can already tell this is going to take longer than an RM, and Muboshgu has a valid reason. Jerm (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_April&oldid=1020781947"