Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January

< 2016 December	Move review archives	2017 February >

2017 January[edit]

J.J. Watt – overturned. There is a clear consensus here that the closer has made an incorrect decision based upon a faulty premise. I would advise the closer to try and spend more time at RM as a participant before taking on more challenging closes such as this one. As has been pointed out here, any "sources vs MoS" RM is going to be a tricky one to close and brushing aside MoS concerns as irrelevant is a surefire way to end up at MRV. No prejudice against a new RM in three months. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Even split between "support" and "oppose" !votes, so no consensus to move, especially not closed by a non-admin, against the guideline WP:SPACEINITS. The closing rationale citing WP:COMMONNAME is incorrect, as the style is independent of the name. JJ Watt, J.J. Watt, J J Watt and J. J. Watt, are all the same "name". Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (not moved) Even ignoring MOS:SPACEINITS the local consensus should have been no consensus. With the consideration of the policies and guidelines brought up in the discussion it clear this should have been closed as "not moved". PaleAqua (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was no consensus for this move, and it contravenes the Manual of Style. Brad v 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and relist. Bad NAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC). I presume that the closer knows little of the MOS wars and has no idea how contentious his last sentence is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I see with relisting is that it appears that it was about 18 days between the last comment made in the discussion and the close. That said there did seem to be the possibility of shifting in at least the local consensus when looking at the comments made by nominator and Tarl right at the end but that was for a different option that the one in the original RM. If it can be shown that the subject of the article prefers "JJ Watt" then I can see an argument for moving to that name but that could be done in a new RM. Might be reasonable to give allowances for that option earlier than the usual 6 months if this review closes with the RM either as moved or not-moved. ( Relist or overturning to No consensus would allow such automatically. ) PaleAqua (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean relist for an admin to close. This discussion is not suitable for an NAC because it fails Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures#2. This is a matter of respect to be given to closers, and higher respect for admins for a higher responsibility in closing controversial discussions, and to pre-emptively prevent any situation where NAC-ers can rush in to lock in their personal biases. NB. As a matter of principle, per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures#2, this one should be closed by an admin. Also note that in particular, I !vote to overturn the closer's last sentence, "These arguments are not in accordance with policy", where I read "these arguments" as referring to MOS-based arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures refers to deletion discussions, not moves. Non-admin closures of move discussions are discussed at WP:RMNAC, and there is no prohibition against closing a discussion like this. This is an obvious no consensus close, and it doesn't take an admin to see that. Brad v 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The principle applies exactly. Controversial closes should not be done by non-admins. There is a fair degree of precedent-setting in this sort of close, as well as arbitrariness, and it is not OK to have it done clumsily or in inexperience. No admin would have closed that discussion in that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Non-admin closes, when challenged like this, should be reverted for a more experienced closer. Non admin closes that extend the controversy are not helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – obviously no consensus to move, and NAC's rationale "The oppose rationales are mostly either that Wikipedia should use its own style or based on how other names are usually written. These arguments are not in accordance with policy." makes no sense; the argument that WP uses its own style is in accord with guidelines, and have no conflict with policy. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. MOS:INITIALS states "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless...An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person." The evidence presented in the discussion showed that to be the case in this instance. Calidum 16:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first bullet "The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name" appears to apply in this case which means that moving to JJ Watt should be considered and a new RM with that option should be opened instead. PaleAqua (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise" really means they do something consistently otherwise. With this guy, the different stylings are more variable, and as PaleAqua says, certainly not along the lines of what was proposed and moved to here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (disclaimer: I opposed the request). For the record, I don't support the notion that our MOS automatically overrides WP:COMMONNAME on purely stylistic questions. Where sources overwhelmingly style something a certain way, so should we. And WP:SPACEINITS explicitly includes an exception for when reliable sources all use one particular style, which prevents it from falling foul of WP:COMMONNAME. However, in this case no clear evidence was shown by the nom or the support votes that there is any consistency in how reliable sources style it. J.J. and JJ are both found in the sources, as well as sometimes J. J. In this circumstance, our own house rule becomes the correct one. Finally, a small WP:TROUT for Robsinden, since as far as I can see you didn't discuss this with the closer before bringing the move review. It's possible they may have reversed the close and relisted without the need to come here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the starter of the RM, I'd appreciate an explanation (preferably on my talk page) as to why MOS:INITIALS' "unless...An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person" doesn't apply in this case. Thanks, Lizard (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about right here? See my comment above. If it is the case here that An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise, it is nonetheless not the case that those sources do something cnosistent; lacking a consistent alternative in sources, it's hard to see how to apply that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was certainly no consensus to ignore, disregard, overlook or make an exception to Wikipedia's standard form. This matter was raised again at Talk:T. J. Miller#Requested move 14 January 2017 (T. J. Miller → T.J. Miller), where it was unanimously opposed, 3–0. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I was the one who raised the issue at the Talk:T. J. Miller RM, so I must thank Rob Sinden for opening this MR instead of My Laziness. In short, I think that the closer disregarded (or wasn't aware of) the long-standing working consensus that MOS trumps COMMONNAME in matters of styling, unless an overwhelming preference for the certain style in sources can be demonstrated. Whether the preference for "J.J. Watt" was "overwhelming" was a contentious point in the debate, but the arguments for it fell short of convincing, which was also reflected in the headcount. No such user (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, since this fails MOS:INITIALS and the closer clearly did not understand and was just supervoting, and seems unaware of MoS itself. So, clearly a bad NAC. Calidum above is incorrect; as Dicklyon points out, the sources do not consistently use "J.J." without a space, they're just inconsistent. If you look even more closely. the sources that use "J.J." habitually do this with all initials, and those that use "J. J." with the space habitually do that with all initials, so the existence of a lot of sources using "J.J." and lots of others using "J. J." means nothing other than that source usage is inconsistent, so we follow MOS:INITIALS per normal. Furthermore, Robsinden's opening observation is correct. WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy and has nothing to do with stylization (that's covered at MOS:TM and has the same "do something unusual only if the RS consistently do it that way rule) anyway. So, all roads lead to J. J. Watt. We've previously had this discussion about half a million times, for J. K. Rowling, C. C. H. Pounder, and numerous other cases. It's extremely rare for a variance to be made; the only one I think of is the double variance k.d. lang. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rebel Heart – Close endorsed. Consensus here is that the close was an appropriate reading of the consensus and policy. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I don't believe GeoffreyT2000 followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, in the sense that he did not properly evaluate the arguments being put forward by the editors involved. In ictu oculi raised a valid point regarding long-term significance, specifically in relation to the terms' already-existing use in articles dealing with the Irish War of Independence, but was accused of having personal bias and being "against fans". Another user pointed out WP:TITLEPTM existed, but said it should be disregarded because it was time to "give the album an honor already." Another users' comment was in direct violation of WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT, and a comment like "let the Queen come through" was ridiculous, and indicative of the general tone, which GeoffreyT2000 should've picked up on. The other comments centered around a general theme of "support per points raised above". I discussed GeoffreyT2000's close on his talk page, who then opened a second RM. This has devolved into the same tone as before, with users similarly disregarding WP:TITLEPTM and pushing for a speedy close and wanting a move review instead.

Secondly, since the point was dismissed outright with no genuine discussion, GeoffreyT2000 may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: specifically the titles' significance to the Irish War of Independence. There's also the issue of the move discussion occurring on the talk page of an article which is part of WP:Madonna, yet was completely devoid of input from both WP:Ireland and WP:BBC. I believe the RM should be reopened and relisted, and an equal footing given to both Madonna fans and members of WP:Ireland and WP:BBC. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in practice any phrase or term Madonna, Lady Gaga, etc. touch will inevitably attract massive page views and become "Top Article", but I do agree that the close was poor. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Another RM is already started. We can't have move review and another RM at the same time. --George Ho (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC); Struck out suggestion per recent closure on second RM. 00:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed that latter Requested move section. As I explained there, the second move request was not my doing. In any case, it was never the appropriate place for the RfC to be initiated in the first place. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the close of the second RM Talk:Rebel_Heart#Requested_move_22_January_2017, but not because "a move review has been initiated", but because it was too soon (only 22 days) after the finding of consensus for the previous RM. The default moratorium for a repeat RM to challenge the consensus of a previous is six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why we're here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Homeostatis07 may have good points about the merits of the closure and the comments, including mine. However, a relisting wouldn't be necessary as the RM was closed on New Year's Eve '16, i.e. two or three weeks ago. The majority uses the statistics tool for their support and rightfully so. Also, the consensus says make the Madonna album the primary topic. And the consensus felt that the TV series related to the Irish War of Independence is not popular enough to overcome the album. ~~Give the Madonna album the highlight for several months and see whether most readers are satisfied with the results. Okay?~~ George Ho (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC); edited. 02:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out above, between the blatant misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as well as the admitted-disregard for WP:TITLEPTM and WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT, 6 of the 7 support votes in the original RM discussion were using flawed reasons to back up their support. Your comments of "Give the Madonna album the highlight for several months..." and ""Let's give the experiment one year or so and see whether people are satisfied" aren't appropriate, because the RM discussion never properly sought to establish primary topic in the first place. It should never have been closed. That's what this right here is about. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus was clear. Just because you disagree with someone's rationale doesn't mean it is flawed. Calidum 04:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, it isn't enough that a bunch of users who are registered participants in WP:Madonna voted to support moving Rebel Heart (Madonna album) to Rebel Heart; to move Rebel Heart to Rebel Heart (disambiguation); without any regard for the term's long-standing significance to other topics, while intentionally disregarding WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. This isn't about disagreement. This is one particular instance of a flawed process. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm still support my point of view from the first RM. And put this message again just to clarify about the user that "accused" the other one. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to Rebel Heart, statistics and significance has played a major part in the discussion and rightfully so. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained above how that wasn't the case. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, it is not enough to be right. To change something, you have to convince at least a few others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. And from which policy do you derive your comment? A new RfC should be opened, in neutral ground—ie, one that isn't populated solely by WP:Madonna participants. BTW: it's amazing what some proper linkage can do. Now The Corrs' "Rebel Heart (instrumental)" is getting half the page views of what the Madonna album is. Considering the Madonna album is not even 2 years old, and The Corrs song is 17 years old; that pretty much throws their already-dubious arguments about WP:Primarytopic out the water. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just observe that despite a good argument, you are failing to persuade. Unfortunately, here is not the place to repeat the arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if I've been wasting my time here, please direct me to the proper forum to raise this issue. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was raised, and settled, at Talk:Rebel_Heart#Requested_move_24_December_2016. You now have to leave it along for at least six months. After that, you may come back and propose to reverse the decision. When doing so, I advise you to summarise the previous decision, explain why they got it wrong, and propose a convincing rationale for your proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Saraiki dialect – endorsed. There is a consensus here that BD2412's closure, that it was not a valid RM to move to simply "Saraiki" and that there was no consensus for "Saraiki language", was a completely reasonable reading of the discussion. Seeing as it has been brought up here, I will note this is not an endorsement of the current title, merely an acknowledgement that there is currently no consensus to move it to any new, specific title. The suggestion of a new RM with one specific proposed title seems like a good one, however Kautilya3's recommendation to let this lie for a few months would be sensible to follow. Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

An extensive discussion that got closed against the consensus due to a technicality.

The RM proposed two alternatives for a new title – Saraiki and Saraiki language. During the discussion, there seems to have formed a strong consensus for moving away from the old title, with Saraiki receiving the most support as a new title. Despite this, the RM was closed as "not moved", with the rationale that Saraiki was already occupied by a disambiguation page, and no proposal has been made to move the disambiguation page to another title. Although it is true that the disambiguation page was not formally included in the RM, its move was implicit in the discussion and assumed as obvious. The RM nomination itself brings up arguments that the current article is the primary topic with respect to the other entries on the disambiguation page, and similar points were made by several editors throughout the discussion. Also, the disambiguation page had been notified of the requested move.

This has already been brought up with the closer [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. While the close feels a little bit WP:Supervote, and the disambiguation page would obviously go to Saraiki (disambiguation), the discussion was faulty, and in particular I fault the nominator for not nominating a target. I think that RM proposals should be rejected if the nominator does not nominate a new title. Instead, open an normal discussion asking for ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator here. Thank you for your comment, SmokeyJoe. The two alternative targets were explicitly proposed in the nomination, so I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by saying I haven't nominated a target. Would you be able to clarify? – Uanfala (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The RM began "Saraiki dialect → ?" It is that "?" that leads to unfocused discussion, some paying attention to the later specifics, others not. You went on to suggest/mention Saraiki Saraiki people & Saraiki language, but by then it is getting WP:TL;DR. I advise you to replace the question mark with a single nominators proposal. If you do, I think you have a good chance of succeeding. It may take couple of months, this MR now has to play out for a few weeks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment to SmokeyJoe: It would still need to be a multimove. If my alma mater was for some reason at "George Washington College" rather than "George Washington University", I might be able to convince readers that it would be more accurate to retitle it just "George Washington" than to keep it where it is, but that would not equate to a consensus that the current "George Washington" should be moved. bd2412 T 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks BD2412. I urge User:Uanfala to read your advice carefully. Note that in the RM I did not accept the argument that anything needs changing, and stopped attempting to digest downstream implications at that point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While there seemed to be some agreement in the discussion to move the article to the bare "Saraiki" title, there was in my humble opinion enough disagreement to at the very most mean "no consensus", which is effectively the same as "not moved", especially in this case when a "not moved" now seems to have less of a waiting period for a new RM than "no consensus" has. I would agree that there was much confusion due to the ambiguous proposal per SmokeyJoe, and that was seen in the faulty rationales that did not appear to follow the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC logic as it applies to article titles like "Saraiki dialect" that, if titled just "Saraiki", could easily confound readers with other "Saraiki foo" titles, especially "Saraiki people". Paine Ellsworth ^u/c 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and suggest we start a new request to move this to Saraiki language. Although I did lend some tentative support for the move to plain Saraiki, and I did express surprise at the outcome at first, I have to say that on reflection it's hard to find fault in BD2412's close here. To make the language primary over the people goes against most guidelines in this area, and WP:CONSISTENCY with other examples (Tswana people / Tswana language just one example of many). However, the evidence brought up in the debate by Kautilya3, in the big grey box in the middle, as well as other sourced evidence by Uanfala, means that more so than ever it is clear that international sources, as well as the stated will of the Saraiki themselves, treat this as a language, not a dialect. Despite repeated requests by me and others for a list of the sources showing it's a dialect, none were produced. We should therefore get on and re-request the move which failed to get consensus in the autumn. I believe the closer has suggested this course of action during discussions at User talk:BD2412 as well. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a side note (that might be irrelevant to the matter here): making a language the primary topic is explicitly allowed by WP:NCLANG (a guideline that unfortunately gets misinterpreted all the time). The reason most language articles aren't at the primary title is that in most cases there do exist ethnic (rather than purely linguistic) groups who have the same name. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend letting things lie for a period of 3-6 months. There is too much heat in this topic, and it has not been helped by the frantic pace at which RMs and RfCs have come up. You need to let things cool down. Of course, as someone who has voted "move" and considered both the issues of the move, I am disappointed. But that is the way the chips have fallen and nothing can be done about it now. Meanwhile, the involved editors can further improve the page, gather more sources, and work on other related language pages, such as Telugu language, where I intend to initiate a discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that "not moved" could get interpreted to imply there is consensus for the current title Saraiki dialect, I was wondering if the close could be amended to include a note that there is consensus against it. What do you think, BD2412? – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as necessary. The close is very clear that (a) the RM did not specify a target (b) the question of moving the disamb page to Saraiki (disambiguation) has not been considered (no consensus for or against that), and (c) there is no clear consensus to move the article to Saraiki language, the only open option. Looks very clear to me. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I generally find it problematic to change closure comments in the middle of a review. bd2412 T 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that generally closers would be explicit in distinguishing between "no consensus to move" and "consensus to not move". To experienced discussion participants it is usually obvious, but do it for the sake of low barriers for others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Booker Prize – endorsed. There is a consensus here that the correct reading of the consensus was made, both for reasons that were elucidated and a couple that weren't. GreenC does make an interesting case however and I think this will probably be worthwhile revisiting down the track – if you do so, SmokeyJoe's final comment contains some good advice. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closing rationale said "the WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't conclusively proven", and the essay WP:CONCISE has an "advantage". This is contradictory because the essay has a built-in requirement for COMMONNAME (a policy) - CONCISE requires COMMONNAME yet COMMONNAME "isn't conclusively proven". This is one of the world's most famous literary awards, the RfM had low participation with 3 participants (plus the nom), and was closed after only 3 weeks. -- GreenC 01:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC) GreenC 01:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The point is that neither name "Man Booker" or "Booker" can be conclusively proven to be the predominant name in use in English. However, consensus was that "Booker Prize" is the more concise name, and technically more correct as "Man" is the sponsor. The prize itself is named after "Booker". And three weeks is plenty of time for people to weigh in — usually these discussions are only open for a week. The close is correct. Brad v 03:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result, strike the closer's rationale. GreenC argued that COMMONNAME was a wash, and concise doesn't matter at two/three words; The Rambling Man argued COMMONAME with the longer version being for commercial reasons; Dicklyon argued COMMONNAME. There was a lengthy interesting discussion to supplement, initially quite tangential, then under "Conciseness" that didn't really address conciseness but did include some reiteration of concerns of a commercial appendagement in the name. I read a consensus to move per COMMONNAME with a policy (WP:NOTPROMOTION) rationale to not include a commercial addition to the longer term common name. To the closer's comment, this is not a field where anything is "conclusively proven", and the discussion did not include "a clear WP:CONCISE advantage to the proposed title", I think that, plus "an argument which gained a consensus in support of moving, during the discussion" he just made up, and for no apparent purpose. The COMMONNAME ~~NOTPROMOTION~~ argument won. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that last NOTPROMOTION. It was interesting, in combination with our little respect paid to WP:Official names.
  Google ngrams need to be used with care, yes absolutely. However, I don't see the problem. this ngram looks pretty convincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's note: First of all, apologies to Green Cardamom for failing to reply to their message on my talk page regarding this close, I meant to reply and then it slipped my mind. Now, on the RM itself, the raw data tells us that there were three supporters (including the nom), and one opposer, so although that's low participation, it's a good numerical advantage for support, and as Bradv points out, there were three weeks of listing which is 3x the normal period of a week. So there is a numerical consensus to move, but of course I had to examine the arguments made as well. Personally, and I disagree with SmokeyJoe on this, I consider WP:NOTPROMOTION to be a weak argument here. That concerns the use of Wikipedia as an advertising tool, or for undue promotion of something, but it does not claim to override WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to article titles. To be clear, when a large majority of reliable sources use a sponsorship name, then so should we. For example Emirates Stadium, The Vodafone Big Top 40 etc. If it had been shown that "Man Booker Prize" was the overwhelming common name, then that would have remained the title. In a 50/50 usage scenario or even a 60/40 scenario, we do generally have a preference for non-sponsorship names over sponsorship ones, but that's not an absolute rule, and I'm not aware of it being written anywhere. In any case, the crucial point here is that common name of "Man Booker Prize" was not shown. In fact, as I pointed out in the close, Dicklyon's NGRAM showed rather the opposite, that in books, "the Booker Prize" exceeded any variant of "Man Booker Prize" by quite some margin. Finally, WP:CONCISE clearly applies here, as Andrewa argued, and again contrary to SmokeyJoe's assertion above. It doesn't matter that there's only a one word difference, but "Booker Prize" is always going to beat "Man Booker Prize" for conciseness, as it increases "brevity" without any apparent loss of "sufficient information to identify the topic". That's what the criterion says, and I found consensus for that based on those arguments. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to overstate the NOTPROMOTION argument, but I read The Rambling Man as cogent on the point. On concise, I read it as missing the point. Although GreenC disputed it applying, and Andrews refuted him, the driving argument was COMMONNAME, which happened to agree with Concise. Even if Andrewa had not rebutted, GreenC's anti-concise argument was carrying no weight. I was surprised at you not reading the COMMONNAME argument as conclusive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe:. Yes, I'll agree with you on that point, and I retract my statement that it wasn't conclusively proven. WP:COMMONNAME was really the clincher, whichever other arguments you look at. Even when GreenC's 2002-2008 data is examined, (which I didn't do thoroughly at the time of the close, as it didn't affect the result, I've just looked at it in detail now) both the 2002-2008 ngram and a normal google book search show "the booker prize" beating "man booker prize" easily. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGRAM is flawed as I noted in the RM. Fortunately, they provide a link where you can click through and look at the actual underlying data and it clearly shows Man Booker Prize is far and away the most common. Sadly, no one is actually looking at the data. -- GreenC 00:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that such data should always include a link. But at the risk of rediscussing the RM rather than just the close, the Google books searches above (which do provide such links) seem conclusive that if anything is misleading, it's the NGRAM. I get 34,000 ghits for the Booker Prize vs 15,200 for Man Booker Prize (your results may vary). Now that's significant but not numerically overwhelming. So look closer... It takes no count of hits for Booker Prize with neither the nor Man preceding, which would all definitely be hits for Booker Prize. And of course there's still the argument that hits for Man Booker Prize are also arguably hits for Booker Prize. And even so Man Booker Prize is 1/2 as common. It's very hard to see how it can claim to be the common name. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it, and other data as well which you also want to ignore, and I'm afraid I've concluded that it's your analysis that is flawed, as it appears have others. And merely repeating yourself doesn't help me to understand your argument. Andrewa (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

help me to understand your argument .. You're looking at old books. The data in NGRAM is stale, it stops at 2008, only a couple years after the official name change .. of course it shows most for "Booker Prize"! Yet the closer gave this old data set a lot of weight while ignoring Google News which is very recent and thus authoritative for determining common usage. The search at Google News uses intitle: combined with -intitle: to isolate cases which are "booker prize" vs. "man booker prize". The string/substring overlap problem is a common one in search technology and Google has a solution for it. Yet it wasn't even mentioned by the closer. Compare intitle:"Booker Prize" -intitle:Man vs. intitle:"man booker prize" .. it's a 2:1 difference, not 50/50 or 40/60. -- GreenC 14:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's relevant, certainly, but to discard the text search in favour of a search that looks only at the page titles seems contrived to me. Similarly to discard the book data. But I think I now understand your argument... You are saying that recent usage commonly includes the sponsor name, and that those calling it the Man Booker Prize would not recognise the article title Booker Prize, and that this argument is so devastating that the closer erred in assessing consensus to move (despite most of us considering your argument unpersuasive). Does that sum it up fairly? Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse without prejudice against another attempt. Lone opposer GreenC is correct that the n-gram stats that I provided are not definitive; turning off smoothing shows a big change toward including Man starting in 2008: [2]. And he needs to be aware that Google Book Search often does synonym substitution, which is absolutely NOT a part of the n-gram counts. In any case, he failed to convince anyone, and that's not the closer's fault. He can try again, with better carefully documented stats, and see if others agree that Man Booker Prize has become what it is most commonly called. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This has become quite involved, but there seems no question that the move was the correct decision, for whatever reasons. Disclosure: I am of course the proposer of the RM in question, after the title Man Booker Prize was cited as a precedent for adding the sponsor name at Talk:Folio Prize#Requested move 14 December 2016. A notification of the RM for Man Booker Prize was posted at the Folio Prize RM at the time, and that RM has since closed as no consensus to move. It should also be noted that the proposer of this MR is also the only opponent of the move so far, and that while participation was low here, the other RM was notified there of this RM, but participants there chose not to participate here. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Looking for post-2000 trends, and looking at a Google Images search of "booker prize", I see a case for a dramatic change. On the other hand, this is an historiographical document, not a newspaper, and what matters is the name over its history. But this was not argued, certainly not well, in the RM discussion, and MR is not a forum to extend discussion on the merits. Wait six months before re-nominating, the then try to make a much more persuasive nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

New York Daily News – closure endorsed. BDD (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In closing this requested move, non-admin User:Tbhotch did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because this move — regarding the name of one of the largest newspapers in the country — was closed after only seven days without the move discussion being widely posted or any mention of the 2007 discussion and move. Also, none of the participants in that discussion were notified. A more widespread debate for such an important article subject seems as if it would be crucial. Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: "Endorse" supports the title "New York Daily News". "Overturn" supports the title "Daily News (New York)". The formal name of the newspaper is the Daily News.

Speedy endorse - for one, this move discussion closed nearly a year ago and no objection has been raised in that time. Two, the filer of this review request does not appear to have attempted to discuss with the closer. And three, the close was quite obviously correct given the unanimous support for the proposer's position. If you think that it should be moved back, it would be entirely reasonable to start a new move request on the article's talk page, and advertise it as you see fit (but be mindful of WP:CANVASS). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: clarification posted after my comment: "endorse" endorses the closure of the move discussion only. I offer no comment with respect to the title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the discussion, though it leaves me confused, since the closure of the move discussion resulted in the title "New York Daily News". If one endorses that close discussion, then on its face that endorses keeping the title "New York Daily News". --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion resulted in obvious consensus to move to the new title; the proposer made a reasonable argument supported in applicable guidelines and nobody objected at all. The closure merely implemented the consensus, and did so without fault; the discussion not being sufficiently advertised is not a reason to fault the close. I would have closed that discussion exactly the same way, and would be incredibly surprised if any neutral administrator would say differently. Closing the discussion any other way is likely to have been a WP:SUPERVOTE anyway. This isn't a forum for objecting to the outcome of a discussion (see WP:MRNOT); since the discussion obviously supported the move and almost a year has gone by, you should have just opened a new move request and given your arguments. I don't see any reason to overturn this result.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree on the appropriateness of rushing through such a major change with only a handful of editors having been aware it was going on. And not even notifying editors involved in the previous discussion was plain wrong. If an argument has merit, you don't sneak it through. That's why we're on this page.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn — First, "speedy" is a problem with the move in the first place, and this insistence on rushing through an arguably inappropriate renaming is unseemly. If you think your position has merit, then let editors have time to comment thoughtfully. Second, I very much did contact the closer, here. Finally, I would be happy to start a new move request on the article talk page, but protocol is to come here. The idea that such a contentious change to the article title for a major, high-profile newspaper — which is factually simply the Daily News — should be rushed through without widespread notification and without even notifying the editors involved in a previous discussion ... I believe that needs to be addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the nominator - no need to vote twice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the close was good. But just start a new requested move discussion, as enough time has past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Requested move was too far back for a move review. PaleAqua (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The RM was open for more than minimum number of days and was unanimously supported. The 2007 discussion Tenebrae references wasn't much of a discussion, and certainly not one that should have held up a proper move request nine years later. (Interestingly, the person who moved the page based on that discussion was Tenebrae.) I'm also not sure why the close is being contested 11 months later. Calidum 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply to answer your question: Because it's protocol to come to this page, and second, because the move request was not widely disseminated and only a small number of editors participated in what is a huge decision, considering what a high-profile newspaper it is — and that the result is, factually, not the newspaper's name. Finally, whether the previous discussion was "not much of" one or not, are you saying pertinent, interested editors should not have been notified? Especially since the person requesting the move could see that one previous editor was not in favor of it? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying a discussion -- not a formal move request or something else of that nature -- between an IP and one other user (who is basically inactive at this point) nine years prior isn't a reason to hold up a valid move request. Six people supported the most recent move and no one objected in the timeframe. If someone was truly interested in the article, we have watchlists for that. Calidum 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment. Tenebrae never contacted me to discuss this move, not 11 months ago, and not even now. If a "widespread debate for such an important article subject" was "crucial", it would hace occurred 11-9 months ago with objections on that RM, not now. For what I can see in the whole history of the talk page is that Tenebrae is the only one supporting the previous title: the article was named "New York Daily News" since it was created, then, he moves it in October 2007 to his preferred title; this is contested, but he moves-war the title. I can't see how this is a preceding for consensus, nor I can't see how "none of the participants in that discussion were notified" as the only participants of the discussion are User:Pacific Coast Highway, who is not convinced ("That dosen't discount common speech though. People call papers names other than what's on the cover.)"; and 69.22.254.111 (talk · contribs), an inactive IP. If Tenebrae considers the current title is incorrect, it should be discussed through RM with evidence that suppress that of the last RM. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never contacted you until this review began since the move discussion was so poorly disseminated that I didn't notice till later. And WP:COMMONNAME does not give us license to falsify names. It says, for example, "Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton); Bono (not: Paul Hewson); Cat Stevens (not: Yusuf Islam or Steven Georgiou)". In all these cases, both names are factually correct. New York Daily News is factually incorrect. COMMONNAME never instructs us to give names that are factually, inarguably, incorrect. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my cellphone right now, so I can't make copy-pastes of links. A simple Google search for "New York Daily News" (from now NYDN) throws a lot of self results. If it was "factually incorrect", why their home page says "NYDN home page"; why their Play Store app is solo as "NYDN", why their Facebook page is named "NYDN". WP:COMMONNAME, which I highly recommend you to comprehend, says that if the common name of someone or something is more common than an official or legal name in independent third-party sources, it is the name that has to be used. And that's not "factually, inarguably, incorrect", you are not their lawyer, nor is illegal, so relax your acussative tone towards me. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is conflating the paper's own disambiguation with the Los Angeles Daily News (which beat it to the URL http://www.dailynews.com/) with the actual, factual name of the paper. Because the LA paper took that URL, the Daily News has no choice but to call its website nydailynews.com. And that difference between the newspaper's name and the website name addresses this editor's example: While http://www.nydailynews.com/services/mobile says "Search NY DAILY NEWS in the App Store or in Google Play", the video showing the app itself is called simply "Daily News App." I believe the editor should have mentioned that. On this page also, I see the Daily News logo at top left, and I see this headline and subhead: "Here's Another Way To Receive Your Daily News!" "DAILY NEWS DIGITAL EDITION". The URL name is not the newspaper's name. The New York Times website is called nytimes.com — that doesn't mean "NY Times" is the actual name of the newspaper.

Speaking of The New York Times, that paper of record, properly and factually, calls its fellow New York metro the Daily News in articles http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/01/13/us/ap-us-jail-guard-solicitation.html?_r=0 here (Jan. 13, 2017)], here (Jan. 10, 2017), here (Nov. 4, 1990), and here (July 16, 1983), to give a sprinkling through the decades.

The examples in WP:COMMONNAME all give two factually accurate names. That's not the case here: New York Daily News is factually not the italicized, proper-noun name of any newspaper. Our first priority is to be factual and accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the monster here is the LADN for taking the url "www.dailynews.com/" back in 90-something, poor "Daily News (New York)". Leaving the ironies behind, that doesn't explain why:

1) They use inconsistently their own brand, they use all "Daily News", "NY Daily News" and "New York Daily News" indiscriminately. On my cellphone the first link that appeared when looking for "New York Daily News" says "New York Daily News (m.nydailynews.com)", on the computer it says "Breaking News, World News, US and Local News - NY Daily News (nydailynews.com)". If I go to their website and click the very first link that appears (NYC woman dies in police custody awaiting drug charges arraignment | NY Daily News) I find this (bold mine): "The woman collapsed around noon on Friday after being arraigned on drug charges at the courthouse at 100 Centre St. (ALEC TABAK/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)"; "BY SHAYNA JACOBS[,] BEN KOCHMAN[,] NEW YORK DAILY NEWS[,] Updated: Friday, January 13, 2017, 8:08 PM". Can you explain how inside their own website they use 3 different names ("Daily News" for their logo, "NY Daily News" for the tab and "New York Daily News" inside their text)?

2) They use for their social media links the names "New York Daily News" and "@NYDailyNews": Twitter Facebook Youtube their Play Store app, twice. Let's assume they do it to differentiate themselves from other existing "Daily News" pages, that doesn't explain they use "New York Daily News" and not "NY Daily News" or "New York's Daily News" or "Daily News of New York" instead, they always use "New York Daily News", a name you above said it was a falsification ("And WP:COMMONNAME does not give us license to falsify names." in bolded text). If it is false and they hate it (probably it is just you considering how protective of "Daily News" you've been here despite it is useless), they themselves use it a lot.

3) This is becoming a waste of my time. 5 people have endorsed the close as non-negligent, yet you are trying to demonstrate I did not follow the spirit of RM by not following your opinion, which was given 11 months later and not even contacting me in the first place. If you want to transform this MRV into a new RM, then this is not the purpose of a MRV: "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion ... this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." Literally no one here is objecting you from opening a new RM, but yet, for some reason, you still here expecting something. For the last open a new RM instead. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained that the website is called nydailynews.com since the Los Angeles Daily News already had dailynews.com. You're being deliberately I-can't-hear-you about that fact.

The name of the newspaper on its logo and every legal trademarked and copyrighted sense is Daily News. There is no such newspaper with the proper-name, italicized logo New York Daily News. It doesn't exist.

Any close that deliberately falsifies the name of an article subject in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME — which specifies which of two equally legal, factual names to use, such as between "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton" — is a flawed close. An encyclopedia does not deliberately falsify names. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 points, and you couldn't give a reasonable anwer to any of them, yet you returned to your previous idea, and to still indirectly call me a falsifier and saying I'm not listening to your weak arguments. I've seen this before, unworthy. Have a nice life, and for the record for the upcoming RM, poor anyone who opposes your beliefs, as you have a serious case of taking oppositors as rivals, as proven in most of your replies to everybody here. Goodbye. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ... wow. I never attacked anyone here, and I never used such nasty, highly personal language as this. And to call an argument "weak" simply because one can't rebut the fact that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't allow for false titles, and to attack me instead.... honestly, wow. In nearly a dozen years on Wikipedia, in which I've been involved in numerous discussions like these, I can count on one hand the number of attacks like this I've had to endure.

I explained it was a flawed close because WP:COMMONNAME directs to use the more common of two equally valid, legal names, like "William Jefferson Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" — and not the names of a factually nonexistent periodical, like New York Daily News. There is, inarguably, no newspaper with "New York Daily News" on its front page. And I explained twice why the Daily News website name is not the same as the paper's, because there was already a dailynews.com. I've explained that this doesn't make the name of The New York Times "NY Times" like its website, nytimes.com.

Finally, while the move discussion certainly was not done not in secret, it was pushed through without any wide dissemination to editors who had worked on the article and discussed it on the talk page. Coupled with the fact it was closed early, even a little early, speaks to a desire to rush it through. For a discussion and a close to be legitimate, editors — especially those who previously worked on the article — needed to have been more widely notified. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ Relist or better yet, please start a new RM because the paper's name is the Daily News, has been since about 1919. Randy Kryn 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to overturn this move. Note we also use common names, not official ones. Calidum 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think people in New York call it the New York Daily News? It's probably not the common name where it is most common. In any case, too much time has passed on this to call it a review, it should be taken to a new RM if the nominator wants it reheard, I'd suggest Daily News (New York) with the present title folded in as a redirect. Randy Kryn 03:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd assume you'd drop New York from the Times name as well. We do that here in Boston with the Globe and the Herald. Calidum 04:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That comment makes no sense. The newspaper's trademarked cover logo is clearly The New York Times. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course not, New York Times or The New York Times is the real name of the paper, as are your other examples. The Daily News is the real name of this paper, and has been coming up on a century now. As an encyclopedia I see nothing wrong in calling something by its real name if it's not too much trouble, and this one seems easy. Again though, this isn't the place to decide this, a new RM seems the best format. Randy Kryn 04:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLAP the closer for closing 21 minutes early, could he not read the nomination time stamp? It was even stamped twice for him!
Endorse the close, all important points raised above appear sufficiently considered in the discussion. The input was unanimous, and is not seriously challenged here. Apply the default moratorium for a consensus result, and forbid repeating the discussion for six months following the close of the DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – there's nothing wrong with closing a unanimous discussion a few minutes short of a week -- or even earlier. I don't agree with Smokey that there should be a moratorium on a new discussion, widely advertised; new discussion would be the logical course if someone feels strongly that a different consensus will be found that way. Overturning this close is obviously a non-starter. Arguments like Randy's stricken "overturn" make no sense here, but could be useful in a move discussion, as he came to realize. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone considers his own position "obvious" does not make it so. I've given a couple of reasons, including non-adherence to WP:COMMONNAME, why this close was fatally flawed. And I think in the interest of full disclosure, and as I would have done, it would have been proper to mention that you and I recently were on opposite sides of a move request that ultimately did not close in favor of the position you espoused.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2016 United States election interference by Russia – Consensus is for endorsement. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Note: Discussion for move related to this review is here.

1. More supported move versus did not support the move. 2. Most of the opposing views are similar to the rationale for opposing the current title. They do not tell the reader why the proposed title is worse. 3. The proposed title conforms to the five criteria of WP:TITLE more than the current title. It lacks ambiguity, reflects the coverage in reliable sources, and is is written in a such that a reader could easily find it via search and have an immediate understanding of what the article is about. Casprings (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleAqua:, @JFG:, as noted, the close was don't move, not "no consensus" I believe that, at the least, it should be overturned to no consensus as to not taint another discussion.Casprings (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: That is my basic point. If you are simply saying you hate the current title and you hate the proposed one, you are not providing a rationale for one title being better or worse.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Given that consensus seems to be against the current proposed change, wouldn't a vote be to relist be a good choice now? The proposed change has more support then anything else. Casprings (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The currently proposed title had a fair amount of momentum even in previous discussions. It wasn't until the tide turned on this whole subject this past weekend that the word "allegations" was deemed unnecessary. In the case that that discussion concludes without a move, and it looks like it is going that way, it may be worth reopening this discussion if people still see merits in changing the title. Either way, that would need to be a new discussion, as a relist doesn't make much sense when there have been three subsequent discussions. Full disclosure: I have voted in the current discussion. I had not voted in previous discussions, and will not close any further discussions. Brad v 04:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much dispute that the current title is an inferior title. Rather, what's needed is a vote on the choice between this proposed title and a title that satisfies NPOV concerns with the proposed title. I'm not sure what the process for that would be, but that would probably be the appropriate process to follow.Warren Dew (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Warren Dew: Re:process, a new move request is underway. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – Move review is not a forum to discuss the merits of the arguments again; its sole function is to assess whether the closer accurately represented the views expressed in the discussion. Seeing strong participation in the discussion, a 13/11 split in !votes and more detailed rationales in the Oppose camp, I don't see how anyone could have closed this RM in favour of the move. To be accurate, the closer should have worded the outcome as "no consensus", which still leaves the title untouched. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - many, many editors have been discussing the virtues of the proposed title for weeks, and all previous opportunities to formally suggest it were instead occupied by other, useless move requests. The results of those discussions - proposing titles which were deeply flawed - should not be used to cut short discussion of a title that is neutral. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close - This is a perfectly good name for the topic being explained in the article; since the previous review only more supporting evidence has been gleaned and it is a matter of fact now. I adamantly oppose any move of this article unless it will be a complete section within the main 2016 United States Presidential Election article. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet and Jasonanaggie: Perhaps you are not familiar with the move review process: it is not clear what you mean by Oppose. Please read the instructions and reformulate your positions about this particular move request and its closure with an Endorse, Overturn or Relist statement. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close ~~Endorse~~ The "no consensus" should have been highlighted rather than "Not moved" but otherwise there was clearly no consensus for this move. Not a no consensus result does not prohibit future move discussions, and given some of the opposing comments it would be reasonable to see if another title might have better consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Switching to procedural close as there is a new RM open. PaleAqua (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to endorse or oppose, but I do question whether Bradv fully weighed the arguments here. Arguments against focused mainly on the fact that they preferred a third option that has repeatedly been rejected at move discussions. They did not advance any arguments why the proposed name is worse than the current name. The topic of the discussion is whether the proposed title is an improvement on the current title, not whether both are problematic, so it seems silly to weight !votes that merely say "both of these suck" as opposition to the move. Those comments seem, at best, tangential to the discussion. Could you comment on this, Bradv? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure BU Rob13, I can try to explain. You are correct that the oppose votes didn't cite policy or provide any good reasons, but neither did the support votes, really. Both sides were voting based on personal preference, as neither name could be proven to be superior to the other based on policy or consistency with other similar articles. In this case, with a lack of a clear consensus, I decided to stick with the status quo as there was no compelling reason or desire to make a change.

At the time of this discussion there were also two other requested move discussions going on, and so I took the "they both suck" votes as an indication that they preferred one of the other options available, or a new option which wasn't available yet. (That new option is being discussed now). Because of the simultaneous discussions I also discarded the option of relisting, as I felt it important to try to simplify the discussion in order to make some progress. So all of that together meant that I had to conclude there was no consensus to make a move, and that it was best to close the discussion.

I should also mention that in my closing statement I implied that both options suck — that was meant solely as a summary of the conversation and a takeaway for future discussions, not as any sort of rationale.

I hope this helps. I realize it may not have been a perfect close, but given the circumstances I'm not sure what else I could have done. If you have any advice, I'm all ears. Brad v 04:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Personally, I see 13 people supporting a move and about 11 people talking about a third option that warrants further discussion but doesn't impact the current discussion. A few actually object to the nature of the change, but very, very few. As such, I see consensus to move, personally. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @BU Rob13: I see several editors commenting that the title proposed in the current move request was rejected repeatedly: this is not true, and was even less true at the time of the first move request, which we are reviewing here. The title was floated in prior comments, including in the request under review, it received support from several editors and was dismissed by others, so we can't call it rejected until the current RM discussion runs its course. That would be circular logic. — JFG ^talk 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. It's time to drop the stick. Seriously. --Tataral (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close, lock in the current acceptable wrong title, and forbid continuation for one month, per WP:TITLECHANGES, and as it is currently a contentious current affairs topic. Close the ongoing discussion that should not have been restarted. Things will be calm in one month. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Queen mother – endorsed, no prejudice against a new RM. Everyone agrees that the correct assessment of the consensus was made as the discussion sat at the time of closing. And everyone also seems to agree that the discussion went for the required time and had a fairly normal number of participants for RM. So on those grounds I am endorsing the decision of the closer who could not reasonably have come to any other conclusion. However, it seems from the MRV here that there was much left unsaid in the debate and a narrow majority of participants were in favour of more discussion. Therefore I see no harm in allowing a new RM, but should that one also end "not moved" (or "no consensus") please leave it at least six months before revisiting. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Only five editors commented and the four that opposed did on rather questionable grounds. There should have been a wider discussion. --Nevé –selbert 18:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean, "rather questionable grounds"? In my contribution, I referred to a couple of Wikipedia policies, the move request included the POV comment "iconic". It was obvious which way the discussion was going. PatGallacher (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't obvious. Her article is the only article on Wikipedia with the words "Queen Mother" in the title. All other queen mothers were most likely not referred to as such to the same extent as Queen Elizabeth was. Going by Google Books, she is as much the primary topic as Wellington is for Duke of Wellington. The two policies you inferred hardly made much sense; you say that perhaps in posterity she will be better known as the queen during the Second World War, yet the arguments made at the move discussion for Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother cast doubt on that presumption. The target article contains mostly trivial info anyway, since the term "Queen mother" is chiefly a British concoction and has historically been rare as an official title, yet its most formal use was to describe Elizabeth in order to disambiguate from her daughter post-1952. Just take BBC News, which refers to her in the headline as just "Queen Mother", without the definite article.--Nevé –selbert 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Although I'm surprised at the low participation in that discussion, and the lack of any support at all, the closure itself was absolutely correct. Even relisting the discussion wouldn't have made sense as there was a clear consensus after seven days. Brad v 21:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Opposition was unanimous. Not agreeing with you ≠ questionable grounds. Calidum 23:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - it's hard to find fault in this close considering that it reflects every comment made in the discussion, but the filer is correct: the oppose arguments are very questionable, and none are sufficient to counter the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rationale in the move proposal. While there are many people who have been the mother of a monarch and thus technically a queen mother (not really a title but a statement of fact, not like Princess but like queen consort), there's only one person who's used it as their ceremonial title (most others have just gone by Queen, e.g. Queen Mary, while others have held other titles), and that person happened to be the matriarch of the British royal family for half a century and one of the world's most prominent public figures for even longer, essentially from Edward VIII's abdication until her own death. She is the primary topic. The argument that the proposal breaks WP:NPOV is backwards (neutrality would follow prominence), the oppose founded in WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM is nonsense (both because of her prominence of 70+ years and her death more than a decade ago), and the "generic title" argument is correct except for Elizabeth using it as her ceremonial title (still not a royal title but a specific identifier, not merely a statement of genealogy), thus it actually supports the proposal. All of this would have been said already if this discussion was properly advertised; it ought to be relisted and a note posted to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility to attract more informed opinions; the proposer should have but didn't, thus it would have been within the closer's discretion to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist close reflected the discussion, however we may as well allow a new discussion, as this one was held in the holiday time. I would have supported the move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Ivanvector. The nomination arguments based in policy were indeed strong even with local consensus against the move. I would normally argue that this should have been a no-consensus close but given the comments above it seems reasonable to relist and notify revenant projects. PaleAqua (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist – Insufficient level of participation. I will note that the close was correct, given the state of the discussion, but the discussion deserves a chance to go further. — JFG ^talk 03:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (consensus to not move) and enforce the six month default moratorium on repeat discussions, dating from the close of this DRV. Do not allow a relist. The close could not have gone any other way, and properly done closes need to be respected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: five commentators, four of whom were clearly opposed and one who stated they didn't care either way (which frankly isn't an acceptable comment to make on a move request, its fine to state you have not made up your mind and to request more information but it's a bit silly to just state you have no opinion). Nominator did not respond to any of the oppose comments, including those that made reference to policy. Move requests are only required to be up for seven days and if during that period you get four opposes and no supports I don't see why a re-list would be needed. Ebonelm (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.