Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December

2021 December

 * I am still not 100% sure about relisting or not and I am open to a disussion, but the fact that makes me believe it should not be relisted again, and I would like to express my vote about it without being struck. --Grufo (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Grufo, technically you are right. But given that the move discussion was open from 10 November to 6 December, and it will be late December before any decision is made about this move review, any reopened discussion is almost certain to be re-listed. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am only a single editor, I am entitled only to my own opinion and to bringing arguments for it, and if Relist is what consensus will determine so be it. But I still am entitled to my own opinion, and striking my comment out symbolically denies this right. --Grufo (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse (involved) The closer stated on his talk page that:
 * ...discussions aren't a vote-counting exercise, and definitely are not run via FPTP. The process of closing any move discussion is pretty much the same – is there a consensus to move, and what title should it be moved to? – but this is one of the discussions where those questions can't be tackled at the same time. There was a clear consensus for a "history of X in the Muslim world" move, and then a weaker, but in my opinion still persuasive, consensus for the use of "concubinage" on its own; while I accept and sympathise that using "concubinage" on its own is a form of euphemism, there wasn't anything in the discussion that rebutted the argument that it was also the term used in most sources.03:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a very good summary of what the closer did, and why they made the closure they did. I cannot fault their logic.
 * Personally I wanted the move discussion to continue for a few more weeks, because I hoped that it would bring more editors into the discussion. Five editors commented on the first day of the move discussion, five more editors commented in the next week, six in the week after that, then three the next week, and one in the last 5 days (5,5,6,3,1), i.e. a total of 20 editors made comments. There is a list at Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Overturn (involved). There was no consensus for the move. It should have been closed as "no consensus". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). The closer clearly and accurately explained the main points of the (protracted and complex) debate, and reached a reasonable result. Correct application of WP:NOTAVOTE. No such user (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you endorse the mover's motivations I would like to ask you one thing, . Do you think the discussion had reached any form of consensus among the participants? Do you agree that “there is a consensus to move to a "History of X in the Muslim world"-style title”, as the mover said? Could you provide a diff for each “consenting” user to confirm the mover's opinion? --Grufo (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse (involved): The move closure seemed thoughtful and well-reasoned. Kudos to the closer for working through lengthy discussion. While the move was not to the title that I originally proposed in the RM, I was convinced both by the emerging consensus and Sceptre's closing logic. They correctly surmised the different threads of consensus that emerged from the discussion, including the favour first for a "History of X" format, secondly for "X in the Muslim world" over "X in Islam" (which, while WP:NOTAVOTE, still had a significant weight of votes), and finally for "concubinage" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the historic practice in question in the given context and in the sources referenced (based on the weight of the evidence, as well as, notably, despite their personal reservations), while also providing the enlightening comparison to other subjects where a term may be euphemistic, but still appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse (involved). A very tricky close well done. There was consensus that this move would improve Wikipedia, and it has. It will not be the last word, but it is progress, and is within due process. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You the move in the first place, why did you do so if you thought that the move would “improve Wikipedia”? --Grufo (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would. Please don't put words into my mouth. And give it a break. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Closure was a tough and reasonable one. Trout the nom for being just a little too avid, both in the RM and here. One repetition might strengthen an argument; two or more repetitions begin to weaken it.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 14:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). After reading over the discussion and the closing, the closer's reasoning seems sound to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Several parts of the proposed title were discussed independently (the "History of [X]" format, "...in the Muslim world" vs. "...in Islam", and the usage of "concubinage" as a term), and I feel that the closer's reasoning was sound in identifying the consensus for each sub-question. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 December 2021 (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. 
 * }
 * }