Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 July 10

2012 July 10

 * While we can debate which name is more commonly used, it's childish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that no average English language speaker would ever have heard of "Cote d'Ivoire". TDL (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * tl;dr Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's cherry picking? I certainly agree that we should follow those five characteristics.  The issue is that all you've done is proclaim that these characteristics all support "Ivory Coast".  You need policy based reasons why they support "Ivory Coast", not just a strong opinion.  In fact, all five of those characteristics argue in favour of Cote d'Ivoire:
 * It's just as recognizable and natural (WP:AT; "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." and "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." Every single one of these items, except arguably media outlets, overwhelmingly favour Cote d'Ivoire.
 * It's more precise (Ivory Coast is also the name for the larger geographic region).
 * It's just as concise.
 * It's more consistent (It follows WP:NCGN which states that we should default to the "modern official name" in the absence of a common name)
 * Do you have any policy based reasons why you think Ivory Coast better meets these criteria better? TDL (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Danlaycock, this isn't a rehash of the Request for Move, it is an evaluation of Beeblebrox's decision. Beebelbrox's decision was completely within policy since it can be completely supported from the foundational principles of WP:AT.  Second, "Cote d'Ivoire" fails the preamble to WP:AT for the very, very simple fact that it isn't an English name, but a French one, and underlying all these issues is the very simple fact that the average readers of our encyclopedia are going to know English names in preference over French names.  You are simply picking at straws if you think otherwise.  "Cote d'Ivoire" simply is not a more natural English name than "Ivory Coast", and your argument that it can refer to a larger area is also nonsense since that argument fails when it comes to calling Germany "Germany" and Russia "Russia" (which terms have both referred to larger areas in the past).  But your entire argument is useless here anyway since it isn't at all relevant to why Beeblebrox closed the RM.  The foundation to WP:AT is reader usability and Beeblebrox correctly judged that the arguments for "Ivory Coast" were stronger in support of reader usability than the weak arguments for a French name that the average English speakers knows nothing about.  --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to rehash the RM. You tried to reargue the RM by citing WP:AT with nonsensical claims that weren't backed by facts, I simply refuted them.  If you want to focus on the merits of the close then please do that.
 * "it isn't an English name" - Cote d'Ivoire is in virtually every English language dictionary I consulted. That makes it English.  Evidently this upsets you, however it's a fact.
 * "which terms have both referred to larger areas in the past" - I've highlighted the key phrase here. Ivory Coast is currently used to describe a larger geographic area.
 * "a French name that the average English speakers knows nothing about" - Evidence to support this please? Otherwise you're just making things up.  TDL (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse move Though the French-speaking government may want its country to be known by its French name, I have to say I respect Beeblebrox's rationale in the original close. Some governments may wish to have their place-names spelled or titled a certain way when put in English, but I think the fact that we have an article about Kiev (and not Kyiv) shows that this is not always successful. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 23:59, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

 Break 4 
 * Endorse move Closing admin decided not to take the lazy way out and declare "no consensus" due to numbers. Disappointed at how many people here are re-hashing arguments for or against the move; this is a discussion of the closure, not the move. - Running On Brains (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When the RM gets closed with a supervote and the actual outcome of the discussion (in this case "no consensus") is not in question the arguments of the closer have to refuted or supported. Hence the rehash. Hence why supervoting is a bad idea. Agathoclea (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As with every closure, it really comes down to the closing admin's judgement. I don't know of any policy that governs when "no consensus" should be the ruling, therefore it is a judgement call. People are reading too much into the closing admin's preamble; I believe his reasoning for closure was sound. - Running On Brains (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that there was "supervoting" involved. it is very clear that if there is split views, an admin ca weigh up the options and close the decision a certain way. There is NO rule saying that if things are evenly split it must be ruled no consensus. if you want to go down that path lets do away with closing admins and simply make it a direct vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse move This was a close call, but the rationale was based in a reasonable analysis of policy and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 21:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse move Is the encyclopedia Britannica a reader? This was done within admin discretion based on the arguments made, near as I can tell. And I just got here, Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, so Britannica is boring so let's forget about it. Let's focus on the Sun and Daily Mail, what other sources do we need anyway... Laurent (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure If you're trying to tell me something...? I don't think titles use citations... Darryl from Mars (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Break 5 
 * Endorse move I will not go into the details of the arguments for and against moving this article, I may do this at the talk page, but there is a general issue here. As a general rule we do try to operate by consensus, but a lot of moves and other contentious decisions aren't really taken by consensus, they are taken if there is a clear majority one way or the other.  The guideline that if in doubt we stick with the existing version or name is generally a sound one.  However in this case I think some people are arguing for following the rules for the sake of following the rules, and the admins are entitled to follow WP:IAR.  Some people are legalistically arguing for a form of "squatter's rights", which if followed rigidly could mean that we are stuck with various arbitrary decisions which were taken at an early stage in the development of Wikipedia.  We had a couple of earlier cases where move discussions were dragging on ad nauseam, Elizabeth II and Marie of Romania, and the admin decided to break the logjam.  (I was on the losing side in the former case, but I accepted defeat with good grace.  I was on the winning side in the latter, the admin may have been swayed by poor quality arguments by opponents.)  In this case, the admin was entitled to note that some opponents were arguing outside the framework of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SURPRISE (e.g. "What does it matter where people expect to find it?").  Also, you can salt a page title, but you can't salt a potential move request.  (BTW, we could have a comparable case where admins are going to have to break the logjam at Rangers F.C., in this case there is no status quo to fall back on.) PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact I went through all the support votes, out of curiosity, and not one of them was arguing about WP:SURPRISE, although it was mentioned, but only marginally, in the comments. That might be an argument worth discussing, but the closing admin didn't give us that chance. He just picked that argument and made the move based on it. That's one of the reason this move review is happening. The major issue for me is, why, when all major dictionaries and encylopedia choose "Côte d'Ivoire", should we choose a different one. What was the main reason, beyond *one admin's opinion*, that made us feel that we know better than these books. Laurent (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments are worth rather a lot in the context of a discussion...Anyways, it's already clear to me that everyone on one side mentions printed works which agree with them, and everyone on the other side mentions the other printed works which agree with them. Picking either of those arguments strikes me as equally ludicrous. However, there seem to have been few realistic denials of what makes sense to Wikipedia's readers. Arguments based on the people that use Wikipedia are understandably more significant than arguments based on the people that write the encyclopedia Britannica. Darryl from Mars (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse move Within admin discretion for a contentious topic -glad a solid rationale was given. Reminds me of the yoghurt/yogurt debate.  R. Baley (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn. As a editor not involved in the recent move discussion, I (weakly) support an overturn. The closing comment rather sounds like a "supervote" (sorry to use this term) and does not appear to be mainly based on the various WP policies mentioned in the discussion, but rather on what the closing admin thinks "might best serve our readers". "Another no-consensus is not acceptable" is certainly not a valid argument either and shouldn't appear in a closing comment. It also seems that the closing comment does introduce some new points never mentioned in the discussion (like the reference to "NGOs" which I could not find anywhere). I'm not sure sure what I would have voted in that particular move request, but I think an overturn might be legitimate.Pseudois (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm confident if the "another no-consensus is not acceptable" principle was adopted by more closers, WP would be improved. As I noted above, a "no-consensus" result the first time a given move is proposed is reasonable, but by the second or third RM discussion I definitely agree "another no-consensus is not acceptable".  As others have noted above, many "no-consensus" logjams have been broken by clear and thoughtful closing decisions, and that's exactly what happened here.  Kudos, again, to Beetlebrox.  This kind of decision here should be commended and emulated, not reversed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, B2C has some interesting ideas to propose changes to policies (for example, proposals above that newspapers should be given more weight than encyclopedias, and here a proposal that after a few no-consensus discussions, an admin must make a call (reminds me of a euchre rule called screw the dealer); unfortunately for the hopes and dreams of B2C, this is not a current policy, in any shape or form, and I would oppose such a policy, because it goes against the ideals here. What I would support on the other hand (and something that has been done before) would be a moratorium on renames; once a strong and deeply argued case has been presented for a move, renames are salted for 1-2 years.--KarlB (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Born2cycle. Wikipedia works on consensus when it can, but not on voting in any sense.  Every closure by an admin is based on the expressed opinions weighed against Wikipedia policy, just as Beeblebrox has done.  In addition, Darryl from Mars nailed it on the head, that when printed sources cancel each other out (paraphrasing his comment somewhat), then the closing admin must look to the foundation of WP:AT, which is plainly and clearly stated to be usability for our readers, tempered with WP:SURPRISE.  Beeblebrox's close was perfectly appropriate.  --Taivo (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true that neither of those two positions is explicitly reflected in policy, but neither is contrary to policy either. And even if it was, for good reason, IAR allows it anyway.  The whole point of IAR is that improving WP trumps following rules. Further, both positions are supported by actual practice (convention).  I won't discuss the news priority point here as it's off topic for this thread (why not continue that discussion where it was being held instead of referring to it repeatedly all over the place?), as I said above, others have noted many examples of "no consensus" logjams that were finally broken by a thoughtful decision.  In fact, I have a section on my user page essentially listing such examples... User:Born2cycle.  While there is no written rule in policy that closers make thoughtful decisions in repeated "no consensus" situations, and I wouldn't support such a rule anyway (but some guidance to that effect in the section on closing RMs is probably a good idea), it's clearly a common practice with plenty of precedent that improves the encyclopedia, and this decision is another example of it.  On the other hand, a moratorium on renames in such a situation (where there is a history repeated "no consensus" discussions) is contrary to the very pillars of WP - where consensus is reached through more, not less, discussion.  I know of no precedent for this idea, and thankfully so.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! I'm quite sure you wouldn't be congratulating Beeblebrox on his bold move if he decided the consensus and policy arguments laid on the side of keep at Cote d'Ivoire. So your whole spiel above is laughable; it's quite obvious you are only congratulating him because he chose the solution you prefer, not because of any larger wish to help the wiki - a keep instead of no consensus would have also sent a strong signal, but I doubt you'd be first in line to shake his hand for that one. For a moratorium, see here: Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names: "no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") - there was certainly no consensus, at least not if you read the discussions; they had to go to an ArbCom, bans, and polls to end it - but they did salt renames as a result. I'm certainly not opposed to admins making a tough call, but on balance when you look at the arguments mooted, there was no significant defense for the fact that serious reference books (in other words, high quality sources) keep the article at Cote d'Ivoire; and there was no serious discussion of relative weighting of different types of sources. Thus, IMO a no-consensus of that particular discussion was the only way, or a relist with a proposal to focus on the policy issues around relative weighting (assuming newspapers go for IC and everthing else goes for CI - but such a discussion wasn't had in depth, so BB ended up supervoting) Finally, I think it's wonderful that you bring up IAR. But the problem with IAR, is I can *also* argue using IAR; keeping the article where it was would also not be contrary to policy (and indeed, many policy-based arguments were mooted to keep). So as I've said before, please stop proposing changes or mystical modifications to policy here; this is not the forum.--KarlB (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's best for all of you if no one brings up all the people who probably feel a certain way about the move because it went a certain direction...Unless you really think one side is more ideologically pure than the other. Anyways, I don't think calling them high quality sources helps, first of all, since they're tertiary rather than secondary, and titles aren't a statement to be referenced in the first place. Actually, I went through some of the policies, turns out this isn't really a relevant objection. Moreover, 'there was no defense' and 'there was no defense that convinced me' are worlds apart.  And I think you missed the point of the IAR argument; yes, perhaps if you had been the admin to come along and close and you had used arguments centered primarily on improving Wikipedia for the sake of it's users, then I'd endorse that decision too. IAR doesn't mean ignore all rules, it means ignore all rules for the sake of making Wikipedia a better resource.
 * And, for the record, 'other encyclopedias do it so that's what's better', if you were going to bring something like that up, isn't as strong an argument as you might feel it is, when I look at it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Karl.brown, admins make tough calls here all the time based on their experience and policy, and had the closing admin chosen to leave the article at its French name, I would have accepted the "loss" with grace as I have been on the losing end of such discussions often enough to know that we want our admins to make tough calls. We win some we lose some.  If an editor can't live with that, then they should go build a birdhouse in the backyard, it will be far more rewarding and less stressful.  What I certainly would not have done, and have never done, is to go forum shopping through the avenue of a Move Review in order to get a decision I don't like overturned.  --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. (1) MRV is not forum shopping, it is the appropriate, sanctioned venue. (2) While perhaps you might have accepted the loss with grace, my comment above was that you would not be writing congratulatory notes to the closing admin, admiring their close, and extolling its virtues for the long-term good of the wiki. Finally, while you didn't start this MRV, you've certainly spent a lot of time (and made a lot of posts) here, presumably to make sure that your preferred decision *doesn't* get overturned. So cut the hypocrisy please.--KarlB (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, I don't think either side is more pure - it's an intellectual debate - but there are from some troubling hints of chauvinism (and western-centricism) which bother me. My point, which I've made before, is that this is the MRV forum; so we're not adding new ideas to the debate (or attempting to suggest changes to policy), we're discussing what was there, and which policies apply. If you read the debate, I never saw any serious back and forth, policy-based argument based on WP:PLACE and WP:AT that recognized the essential conflict between sources (note: not just news vs encyclopedias, but books, journal articles, library taxonomies, etc -- all of which are referenced at WP:PLACE); instead both sides were busy citing google numbers or arguing over whether Cote d'Ivoire was indeed part of the english language or not. As for whether they are high quality sources, please read WP:IRS, especially the section on context - choosing the right source is important - especially when dealing with foreign names and accents. I've mentioned elsewhere that you may have a wonderful book of black and white photos of Picasso's paintings, but that would be a terrible source on which to base the conclusion that he didn't use the color blue; the same applies for sources that don't use accents (due to typographical or technical limitations) - you can't use those sources to argue for the correctness of an accent or diacritical in a name. And the statement that article titles aren't sourced is silly - why else do we have google tables and search results and book links, etc; of course article titles are referenced, they're referenced like crazy in any MR. Finally, as to encyclopedias, I'm not saying (nor were others saying) that we should copy what Brittanica does. I'm just saying that if you look at the tests in WP:PLACE, there are several where CI wins, and one where IC wins. The necessary discussion about which sources should take priority (e.g. ideas like: we should *always* copy NY times instead of copying Brittanica) were not mooted, resulting in BB making a supervote.--KarlB (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would strike me as a super vote if WP:PLACE were the only arguments. However, and sticking just to what I see in the discussion; indeed, the idea is brought up in the move request itself, is that the people looking for this country are looking for "Ivory Coast", overwhelmingly. This is mostly unrelated to prioritization of sources, and very closely related to the justification used in the close. Essentially, I would disagree if you're arguing that the move was based on Beeblebrox's personal reading of WP:PLACE. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem. WP:WHAT USERS ARE SEARCHING FOR is not the only consideration for an article title; redirects can handle that nicely. If we went by searches, then we should title Barack Obama as just Obama as it's far more popular to search using that name alone. The relevant guidelines are WP:AT and WP:PLACE, but BB did not make a policy-based argument based on those, or if he did he didn't mention it. WP:AT has several criteria, and WP:PLACE outlines several sources to check, without prioritizing any of them. As far as I can tell, all of these guidelines were ignored, and a gut-call-supervote was made instead. --KarlB (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What a massive violation of WP:AGF, Karl.brown. Beeblebrox very clearly stated his thought process and the way that he came to his decision based on reading the entire discussion twice and giving himself time to consider Wikipedia policies and procedures.  Your comment "all these guidelines were ignored and a gut-call-supervote was made instead" is a borderline personal attack.  I've ignored the ridiculous charges you've leveled at me, but your personal attack on Beeblebrox and dismissal of his own description of his decision-making process is uncalled-for.  You are simply accusing an admin of not doing what he said he did and of violating his trust as a Wikipedia admin.  And you simply ignore the solid Wikipedia policies for reader usability explicitly spelled out in the preamble to WP:AT and WP:SURPRISE.  Beeblebrox has spelled out exactly how he came to his decision and your attempts to characterize that as "gut-call-supervote" are simply personal attacks and not assuming good faith.  --Taivo (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse Close. The closer's rationale was clearly stated and does not fall outside of Wikipedia policy or reasonable thought.  The Ivory Coast name issue has been festering for years and, assuming the two sides arguments are equal (I don't and was a participant in the move debate), the English name is more familiar and less astonishing to readers than the French one.  —  AjaxSmack   20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Overturn Even the closing admin indicates that if the arguments and "votes" were looked at, the result would be no consensus for the move request. There is not even a clear tendency one way or the other here. Status quo is normally retained in cases like this. --Polaron | Talk 04:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very observant of you to notice that if I had treated this as a vote there would be no consensus. Did your browser crash before you were able to finish reading the rest of that sentence? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that should have been the end of it. Saying no consensus is unacceptable is unacceptable. Sometimes there just isn't consensus. This move review wouldn't have popped up if you closed it as such. --Polaron | Talk 05:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you did in fact actually read what I actually said and not what you imagine I secretly menat by it it is not unnaceptable at all. . I said  there was no consensus only if I decided to judge consensus solely by strength pf numbers and that it is a good thing that is not how it works. Not the same thing unless you imagine a subtextual meaning that it not there. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks, please read my initial comments to this discussion above. The continued conflation of "local consensus" and "community consensus" - referring to each as "consensus" without distinguishing between the two related but different concepts - just adds to the confusion and disagreement.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse close the admin used his discretion. This is ridiculous forum shopping.   Hot Stop   15:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this forum shopping? That's like saying DRVs are forum shopping. The whole point of MRV is to review move request closes. Silver  seren C 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because within two hours of filing this Move Review, the proposer was walking down the road of reviewing the evidence that was presented for the Move and not discussing the policies by which the closing admin had made his decision. Within 24 hours this was Move Request #8 and no longer a Move Review.  That's the "forum shopping" element.  --Taivo (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or because it seems at least half of the commenters here are basically restating their views?  Hot Stop   12:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Endorse close. The closer's rationale was clearly argumented and falls within Wikipedia policy and reasonable thought. The Ivory Coast name issue has been going on for many years and whilst the vote itself was close, more were in favour of change than maintaining the status quo. A lot of evidence with sources was given to demonstrate the common name for the country in English is Ivory Coast. In case of a structural divide in opinion other factors can be evaluated such as which of the two options follows policy better, which of the two options provides a better choice and usability for our English-speaking readers/audience, etc. That is exactly what the closing admin has done. The supervote argument is baseless. --Wolbo (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "which of the two options provides a better choice and usability for our English-speaking readers/audience" So you're saying the closer should use their own opinion on which choice they like better and think has more "usability". That's pretty much the definition of a supervote. Silver  seren C 21:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it would be basing it on the sources. That is not a supervote. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Continually repeating that won't change the fact that the usage in sources is at an impasse. And the closer shouldn't be basing their close on their opinion of the sources, but how the sources were discussed in the discussion itself. Silver  seren C 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * People continually lying or making assumptions that the closing admin cast a "supervote" does not change the fact that is not what happened either. Whats the difference between an opinion on the sources and how the sources were discussed? the sources showed Ivory Coast is the primary English language name for this country.. and that usage was factored in by the closing admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Moreover, issues beyond the sources, whether those were impassed or not, which supported the move were also discussed, particularly in terms of what the readers are looking for. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Beeblebrox comments in order  Because there is much confusion and accusations over Beeblebrox's close, I've compiled his responses with respect to the close and especially the question of no consensus is unacceptable vs no consensus was not eliminated as a possibility. I've placed it here, in the hopes that this will illuminate his reasoning which is unfortunately currently scattered across multiple pages and threads. It's a bit choppy b/c it has been pulled out of context, but they are his words, unedited, and may help in understanding his reasoning. --> Move review/Log/2012 July 10/Beeblebrox comments--KarlB (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not have to be like that at all though, scattered comments put into a page by someone else, its not the way it should be done and still fails to address many of the problems, such as people have voted above claiming something the admin has categorically denied. This whole process needs changing in the future to stop such a mess. Allowing the admin to make a detailed explanation of why they closed the way they did BEFORE the challenger puts in their viewpoint, would have been better. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The page above is an attempt to help; Beeblebrox *has* explained himself, but the explanations are scattered. They are now centralized in one place, so people can read and judge for themselves. --KarlB (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree its aimed at helping and is a good idea for the admins explanations to be clear and in one place, but it should not have to be done in that way at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Never, never, never refactor like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 02:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? PatGallacher (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }