Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2024 October Move review archives 2024 December >

2024 November

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
England in the Late Middle Ages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Closer appears to have weighed arguments contrary to WP:RMCI, giving equal weight to comments that are unsubstantiated opinion against those that are made with reference to prevailing P&G and evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse (uninvolved) — Although I do concur that there was consensus to not move, the closer should have left a more comprehensive closing statement. Besides that, I do not see a problem.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think "no consensus" would have been a more precise result, but this is a move review. I do believe the evidence suggests that early and late should not be capitalised in most style guides and would have supported this option myself, but this is not a situation in which the evidence is so strong that we can discount the opinions of others. I also might suggest an RfC based on the suggestion that this should be standardised across the site. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of style guides was introduced by one editor. Of the six guides presented, they report one would cap, two would lowercase, one would probably lowercase and two were silent on the matter. Nonetheless, they opposed the move because they [didn't] like the CMoS approach - ie their conclusion was contradicted by the evidence presented. The evidence of usage in sources indicated by ngrams clearly shows a minority of capitalisation in both cases. The opinions of others (opposers) are personal opinions not supported by evidence and flatly contradicted by the relevant P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportingFlyer, unless I'm mistaken it is standardized uppercased across the project, at least in the historical or geological eras. This RM was a poke at that, and the closer came to the correct conclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was both a numerical majority and a consistency reason for Not Moving. Maybe the numerical majority reflected the respect of the participants for the consistency in capitalization argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The oppose arguments in this RM could not be lightly discarded by a closer (WP:DISCARD), as requested by the nominator. Essentially, the opposers argued that the exception in bold at the top of WP:NCCAPS applies: "...unless the title is a proper name." This argument does not "flatly contradict established policy" and was correctly not discarded by the closer. A longer closing statement might've been nice and a no-consensus close would also have been okay, but the result is no different, so I endorse the close. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The established P&G goes on to tell us how to determine if something is a proper noun. It is not based on unsubstantiated opinion that is contradicted by evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Big Ben (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Estar8806 closed the discussion based on WP:SNOW. This is the first move request since 2018, and it was closed after less than twelve hours. The closure has been treated like a vote, with the fact all comments before the closure opposed the move being used as evidence that it had no chance of succeeding. I believe that estar8806 has also misunderstood the 'support' argument.

While it is unlikely that the page would have been moved, SNOW requires certainty and I do not think this threshold was met. At the very least, leaving the discussion open for a week or so would potentially have allowed a more in-depth discussion of the possible names of the article to take place. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse That was the start of a blizzard. Reopening would be needlessly bureaucratic. SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved, commented but didn't !vote) I can't think this move will succeed, given that 7 people had opposed in less than 12 hours into the RM and those people clearly grounded their reasons on COMMONNAME I can't see how this would result in anything other than "not moved" or if you're very lucky "no consensus" if left open for a whole week so I'd say unless the OP really wants it to run for a whole week that closing early was fine per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (involved, opener) I would be interested to know what counts as a 'clearly grounded' reason for closure purposes, because from my perspective it seems that the oppose votes which rely on COMMONNAME have simply mentioned the policy without actually explaining why it's relevant in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). I would close it the same way. "Big Ben" is the clear common name and there is no chance that it would be moved to the less natural and recognizable (even if more precise) title "Elizabeth Tower". SilverLocust 💬 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved), while typically I am of the opinion that SNOWs shouldn't happen right away, a SNOW close was appropriate in this instance. Closer makes good points in their discussion about the self-realized shortcomings in this RM. Bobby Cohn (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Very clear case for a SNOW close. The many opposers had a clear, policy-based argument and several called for an early close, either explicitly or by writing "strong oppose". Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Continuing the RM would have been a waste of time of editors, just as this DRV is a waste of time of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Carousel (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

This was closed as not moved, without any actual consensus to not move. The opposing side was asking for consensus to make an exception to the guideline, and while that kind of consensus can sometimes be found if the numbers are lopsided enough, it can't be created out of nothing in an evenly-matched discusssion. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved): there's no consensus here for a no move closure, per appellant; especially in the case of what—at least to me—appear to be stronger policy arguments, for the exact scenario as described above. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To address further some of the subsequent !votes, it's not that a "no consensus" result won't change the subsequent outcome of the procedure, yes it will remain in this AT. It's that the meaning of our wording does matter and we need to be precise if we are to take ourselves seriously when we discuss highfalutin principles such as consensus. There was none to be found here. It matters moreso when it's a disputed move from a longstanding title (WP:RMNCREV) or when there is subsequent RMs to be had, the hurdle for overturning the previous determination of a not moved decision is presumed to be higher, which is not fair if the previous closure was incorrect. "Not moved" and "no consensus" are different closures and we should not endorse their amalgamation at MRV. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish. Overturn to moved I think "no consensus" is probably a more precise result, but for moves, I view "no consensus to move" and "not moved" as equivalent, whereas an AfD a "no consensus" is quite a bit weaker than a "keep." Also, after reviewing the policy guidelines, I am not completely convinced this is a situation where those wishing for a move have a stronger policy argument, as the guidelines are vague about this specific scenario. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at WP:PRIMARYFILM again, and I think I mis-interpreted it the first time: I believe it says if the film's name is not the primary topic, it must be disambiguated, even if it is far and away the primary topic as far as films are concerned. I'm not sure I agree, but the last discussion strongly opposed changing this. In that case there's not much room here for argument, even though the discussion itself was clearly a "no consensus." SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those endorsing this discussion is that this is one of the areas where policy is - I wouldn't say it's necessarily clear, but it is specific per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Simply looking at the consensus without looking at whether the arguments were in line with what we traditionally do in this situation is not the correct way to approach this move review. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the admission by the closer this was their first RM close may further demonstrate an obscure but agreed upon rule wasn't correctly applied here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Advise the nominator to put more rationale into the nomination statement. If you don’t, it is often a trainwreck, and a net waste of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding others’ !votes to overturn, I share a feeling of dissatisfaction with the result, but I dont agree there is a consensus to move evident in the discussion. It could be relisted, but I think it should wait two months for a better nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback noted. I should have done a better job explaining that there. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved <uninvolved>. Personally I disagree with WP:PRIMARYFILM, but it very specifically prohibits incomplete disambiguation even when it's otherwise allowed, and so far there's been consensus against changing that. Per the closing instructions, closers generally have to avoid a title that's "out of keeping with naming conventions...regardless of how many of the participants support it". Changes to the guideline should be made by RfC, not RM. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > Agree with editor SmokeyJoe above. In this case "not moved" is synonymous with "no consensus", and the latter may or may not have been a more precise closure decision. Again, in this case the result is the same whether "no consensus" or "not moved" is used; however, that is not always the case. There have been exceptions. Open for two weeks I see no reason to relist, as it is doubtful that the outcome would be altered. I would recommend that editors strengthen their arguments to move the page, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a rename. I think that this closure was then a reasonable end to the survey and discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse < uninvolved >. The nominator and proponents of the move did not make a compelling case. Maybe it should have been closed as no consensus, but that's really splitting hairs. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The primary film guideline is in conflict with the broader sitewide guideline allowing partially disambiguated titles for very clear cases. And mamy participants in this debate felt this warranted that and that the sitewide guideline should be applied in this case. As above, the discussion could and probably should have been closed as no consensus, but the practical difference between those outcomes is negligible.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't agree here - none of those opposing applied WP:PRIMARYFILM correctly, once you understand the premise - the argument is that is the primary film title of all of the films named Carousel, and WP:PRIMARYFILM says to disambiguate that with a year. There's no specific reason argued by those opposing why WP:PRIMARYFILM should not apply. While WP:PRIMARYFILM does go against the gravity of everything else on the site, the consensus has been reaffirmed relatively recently. Unlike notability, move reviews are an area where the rules are a bit more clear cut... SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I agree with Amakuru. Although I've bolded it as "overturn", I agree with the remarks that there's no difference here for practical purposes. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (the closer) — I can agree with almost everyone here that there really is not much of a difference between not moved and no conensus, and I'd consider them synonyms with each other. As this was my first RM closure, I didn't really give any weight between the two. That said, I still found consensus to not move.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Perspiration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

When including all comments from the initial discussion, regardless of whether they were directly about the proposal, the vote was evenly split at 50/50 (4:4). The closing message was 'no consensus', which is accurate based on the numbers alone. However, since WP:RMCI requires evaluating arguments as well as numbers, I will briefly summarize these: opposers preferred 'perspiration', feeling it sounded more encyclopedic (WP:TONE) and less ambiguous than 'sweat', referring to both the fluid and the process, thereby avoiding confusion about the article's focus. Supporters, on the other hand, emphasized the statistical prevalence of 'sweat' over 'perspiration' (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MEDTITLE), refuted the claim that 'sweat' describes a different phenomenon than 'perspiration' when referring to the fluid, and advocated for a clear focus on either the fluid or the process. Overall, this decision appears to contrast factual arguments (statistics) with personal preferences. –Tobias (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closer comment): while !votes with rationales like seems more encyclopedic are not especially helpful, there was a key argument on the "oppose" side that lead me to mark it "no consensus". (That said, WP:TONE plays some role and should not be entirely discarded. A formal tone is important.) Basically, the argument put forward by WhatamIdoing: Also, it's not clear to me whether this article ought to be about "the fluid" or about "the process of excreting the fluid". "Perspiration" works for both, but with the proposed name, it would have to be either sweat (the wet stuff itself, as a collection of water and some other chemicals) or sweating (the process of making the wet stuff; Diaphoresis). As this article currently covers both (and that seems fine to me), then having a name that covers both in the same grammatical form seems convenient. This argument is just as valid and as strong as the COMMONNAME-based one; we shouldn't be swayed into thinking that numbers-based rationales are somehow more worthy or more powerful. (I would also like to note: I did not make the close based on the numbers alone.) Sweat is a bit too ambiguous a term, and does not cover the entirety of the article subject. Therefore I think the arguments are equally matched. (Remember I don't have to defend the ambiguity argument as better than the other one, and I don't think it is. I just have to show it has equal weight). I would not characterize that argument as a personal preference.
If this response is unsatisfactory, I'm happy to elaborate further on why I think my close is appropriate. Cremastra (u — c) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This discussion wasn't that well attended and since its especially controversial (otherwise we wouldn't be here), it could use more input from the community.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved): WP:TONE / WP:SLANG is a legitimate reason to oppose this proposed move, and that is basically what people mean by saying the current title "seems more encyclopedic". "Sweating" was also mentioned as a possibility, which also seems like a good candidate, but didn't gain clear traction. The RM was relisted and was open for more than two weeks. No consensus was evident, so the RM was closed as "no consensus", which seems fine. Less formal terminology is often avoided in Wikipedia article titles (Defecation, Feces, Urine, Sexual intercourse, etc.). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was no consensus in that discussion. There are functionally two different, potentially correct arguments with about equal support. In fact, I will even go further and say that I do not think the argument that sweat was the COMMONNAME was clearly made (I wouldn't think a simple ngrams shows anything useful since it's not limited to medical topics.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no tone or slang problem. There was no consensus around the issue of whether an article whose main subject is sweating, while also discussing sweat as the result of sweating, should be named "Sweat"; it was said that perspiration means both sweat and sweating, while sweat does not mean sweating and is therefore not the name for sweating for it to even qualify as the single most common obvious name for sweating.—Alalch E. 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was no consensus, and it was closed as No Consensus. Move Review is not Requested Move round 2. Relist would have been valid, but closure as No Consensus was also valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That was a “no consensus” heavily leaning to “rough consensus to not move”. The nomination was weak and two support arguments were weak, as in not engaging with actual evidence, while the oppose arguments had more substance. No consensus is a good close because overall it was a superficial discussion in an unimportant move. A future fresh nomination should be expected to have more rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Israel–Hamas war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
See also other post-move discussions here, here, here and here.

There was a broad consensus for a move of the title away from Hamas and towards Gaza based on increasing and converging use of Gaza by RS. While initially a move to Israel-Gaza war found mixed support, I proposed a compromise for a move to Gaza War, which found great support among editors as a middle ground solution. Despite this the move was closed as no consensus, and there were attempts by several editors to discuss a rereview with the closing editor, to which they did not agree with. To add to that, three editors who had voted against were found to be sockpuppets. This really needs a rereview to accurately reflect the established consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). Most editors didn’t participate in the alternative proposal, and their silence cannot be interpreted as endorsement of it. This is particularly the case because Gaza War has previously been considered and rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has claimed that their silence was an endorsement. As for the prior consensus argument, it is irrelevant given the passage of time and new sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two proposals. Here is a tally of the !vote count of each one:
"Support" "Oppose" Support % Note
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Israel–Gaza war" 50
List
GeoffreyA,kashmīrī,Ïvana,Unbandito,Jebiguess,Mast303,Charles Essie,Scuba,Urro,إيان,HadesTTW,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Genabab,Haskko,nableezy,Stephan rostie,Yeoutie,Selfstudier,Jeppiz,JOEBRO64,BarrelProof,Levivich,Pachu Kannan,Makeandtoss,Iskandar323,Ainty Painty,20WattSphere,Josethewikier,Clayoquot,Aszx5000,RealKnockout,Black roses124,Kire1975,ByVarying,Est. 2021,Wellington Bay,WillowCity,Chicdat,Abo Yemen,C&C,Gödel2200,Benpiano800,EmilePersaud,Hydrangeans,Snowstormfigorion,Havradim,TyphoonAmpil,Albert Mond,VR,DFlhb
 37
List
BilledMammal,PaPiker,UnspokenPassion,Longhornsg,Kowal2701,Drocj,웬디러비,The Mountain of Eden,InvadingInvader,Jdcomix,Figureofnine,Hogo-2020,DecafPotato,Nashhinton,MaskedSinger,IanMacM,The Weather Event Writer,JohnAdams1800,xDanielx,Excel23,IntrepidContributor,FortunateSons,Alaexis,Kalpesh Manna 2002,Eladkarmel,InfiniteNexus,Clear Looking Glass,photogenic scientist,LuxembourgLover,Benjitheijneb,Swordman97,Drsruli,Awesome Aasim,IJA,Some1,Katangais,Yovt
 57% All of the "Support" !votes in this section supported moving away from "Israel–Hamas war", with many supporting a move to Gaza war instead.
Move "Israel–Hamas war" to "Gaza war" 37
List
Stephan rostie,Black roses124,GeoffreyA,Pachu Kannan,Chicdat,Clayoquot,Gödel2200,Selfstudier,Levivich,CNC,Hydrangeans,JOEBRO64,Ïvana,Jeaucques Quœure,GnocchiFan,Shadowwarrior8,JasonMacker,Lewisguile,نعم البدل,Vanilla Wizard,WikiFouf,Bluethricecreamman,Raskolnikov.Rev,Chuckstablers,Jotamide,20WattSphere,HadesTTW,pma,CoolAndUniqueUsername,Smallangryplanet,Kingofthedead,Braganza,PadFoot,Nojus R,VR,SP00KY,Parham wiki
 10
List
XavierGreen,Mast303,modern_primat,Alaexis,Mag1cal,Drsruli ,Coretheapple,MaGioZal,Andre,Yovt
 79% Most supporters in this section were ok with both dates and without dates, while some had a strong preference to omit dates. One[1] of those who opposed this title, also opposed Israel-Hamas war (in favor of Israel-Gaza war).

Note some users !voted in both sections but most only !voted in one section.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Discussions of this size and time length are often incredibly hard to judge and more often than not both sides have equally strong policy arguments, even if one has more !votes behind it. In most cases, no consensus is the only possible and responsible close. I'd agree with the closer, give it a few more months (or less, as always if something changes more clearly), and maybe propose Gaza war or some variation of it next time around, but I don't see how a close in favor of any particular opinion could've been anything but a WP:SUPERVOTE.estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gaza war I thought there was clear consensus for a move to that title at this time, and this is how I would have closed the discussion. A no consensus close is easier because it's a contentious topic but I'm not sure it's correct here given there's a clear numerical advantage to move. Given the nature of the discussion, this may necessitate another immediate move discussion, and I think that's fine. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse IMHO, the closer made the right call by closing the RM as 'no consensus' on moving Israel–Hamas war to Israel–Gaza war. The 'Common ground' section raised additional questions, but I doubt most editors who participated in the main RM bothered to scroll down far enough to see it (or took the time to engage with that part). As the closer suggested, editors should give it a few months and then open a new RM. This time, they can ask whether Israel–Hamas war should be moved to Gaza war [with or without dates] and see if the consensus is clearer without the other options getting in the way. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the common ground section, why not support a relist? It would be time consuming and unnecessary to start this process all over again in a few months. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - If I had participated, I might not have noticed the Common Ground containing an alternate proposal. The option of Gaza War was not obvious. What is obvious was the choice between Israel-Hamas War and Israel-Gaza War, and that was no consensus and closed as No Consensus. A separate RM should be started to rename the article Gaza War, which will probably pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) Once again a split between editors as to whether it ought to be Gaza war or Israel Gaza war, in the face of which the closer is stuck with a no consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - this requested move discussion should have followed, not ignored, a procedural requested move of Gaza War (which is a disambiguation page). The claim that …many supporting a move to Gaza war instead is questionable, with several editors basing their argument solely through Yes, which are not valid arguments.
𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mast303
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_November&oldid=1265827833"