Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July

Fairfield Metro station

 * (Discussion with closer)

So me and this user have been unable to come into an agreement regarding the name of this railway station. There have been two news article that state the official station name has changed, but Paine keeps stating its not enough to officially update the station name. I've provided several links & photos that show the name has changed. Please step in. FlushingLocal (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I take it this is in reference to the move discussion at Talk:Fairfield Metro station? BD2412  T 00:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, my apologies for my formatting, I haven't used wiki in a minute haha. FlushingLocal (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn to move: I was the only participant that originally opposed the move, and I notified Paine Ellsworth immediately after the close that I wished to support a move based on new evidence. The evidence is now very clear: the name has been changed on official websites (info page, timetable, map), news reports the name is changed, and multiple news stories (1, 2) use only the new name in brief mentions. No reliable sources appear to have used the old name in several months. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to move the only opposition to the move initially was that it was WP:TOOSOON, but there was absolutely no opposition afterwards. The closer is trying to enforce a guideline to the detriment of the project. For many name changes, we just need to wait and see that the official name is being used widely enough that it's the common name. It's very easy to do with non-controversial changes like the simple renaming of a station such as this one and it actually occurred in this discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a "guideline", it's about the stronger community consensus of WP's article title policy. And yes, we should all enforce our policies when closing move requests or any other type of discussion, shouldn't we?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMECHANGES directly cites common sense. The move request was initiated before the transport network had finished updating, and the only opposition was that it was moved too soon, and we need to wait and see if the name becomes official and used. Three different users then cited how the move had become official, negating the two "not yets." Absolutely no one opposes the move now, and it's common sense that a train station with an uncontroversial name change should appear in the way it's signed. Your close ignores common sense and was a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. There's also third party sources reporting on the name change that weren't brought up in the article, so even if we double down on your technicality, it will still need to be moved. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew at the time of the close that it was just a matter of time; however, as of the time of this RM close, only one source had been found and cited that used the new name routinely per article title policy. If as of now more such sources have been found, then yes, the new name has become the common name. That was not "my technicality", it is WP policy backed up by long, strong community consensus. Even a station name change can be controversial and confusing to readers who don't know of the change and who search for the old name when it is still the common name. Any other time you'd be citing WP:RMCI, "...and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy," for gosh sakes!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn (uninvolved) per PI and SportingFlyer above. This shouldn't be controversial. Jessintime (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's the thing, it really is just a matter of time before reliable secondary sources can be found per policy that will make the new name the common name. But put yourself in a reader's shoes for a minute. You search for the station using the only name you know, the old name. If the article's title is changed before the new name becomes the common name, then a redirect takes you to the new official name, which you aren't familiar with yet. Now you think, 'Wikipedia is such a piece of s__t, it took me to the wrong article.' That's why WP has the article title policy in place, to keep reader astonishment to a bare minimum.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 15:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They'd just be redirected to the new article, though, no one in the discussion made that argument, and at the end of the discussion there was agreement among three different users that it was time, and one of the opposers stated they don't oppose anymore. Could you just please un-do and change your close to move the article? SportingFlyer  T · C  16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, readers will be redirected to a name they are not familiar with and will think their search led them to the wrong page. It's what WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES are all about. Until the title is shown to be the common name, it should NOT be changed. C'mon, you know better.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 17:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn to move (uninvolved) - seems like it has enough sources, both primary and secondary to confirm the name of the station has been officially changed. It's not like we need an overabundance of secondary sources since the notability of the station itself has been established. The name change won't confuse readers if a redirect from the old name is left in place. And common sense would probably be that if a reader is wanting to actually take the train to a destination, they'd probably check with MetroNorth before looking at Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

 * (Discussion with closer) and also (additional Discussion with closer)

This was either a close for Ivory Coast or perhaps no-consensus. Red Slash based everything on ngrams as opposed to other argument content. ngrams were shown to be inefficient compared with so many major sources still using Ivory Coast. Google trends has Ivory Coast way ahead, and even that source is limiting. I've never seen ngrams used exclusively as a reason to close an RM. Past discussion have had the same ngram arguments and been quashed. Why this one RM and it's moved? I edit a lot of tennis articles and if we used ngrams to this extent all our foreign players and locations would be at different titles (titles Wikipedia forces us to use often get 0% ngrams vs 100% something else). Plus this was closed the day three more people placed their opinions... it was very active the day it closed. I'm sure the closer was sincere here, but it was just a bad close. Even the person who opened the RM thinks it was a bad close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE]]) 21:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE]]) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Good turnout, open long enough, all processes conducted properly, policies adhered to and evidence all stacked up in one direction. Good close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved) The close correctly discards a couple of the oppose !votes, but the first point makes clear that the closer unilaterally decided that ngrams (the main argument for the move) outweighs the fact that Fyunck and even :Erp's support !vote show major news organisations still use Ivory Coast with considerable frequency, or agree that it is the common name (:Erp's UK government comment). Given this is a fairly major change, I think the discussion is closer to a no consensus than a move even with a slight support majority when downweighting a couple of the oppose !votes, but I think the only really strong votes in the entire discussion were Fyunck's and :Erp's (and Kowal2701's listing of sources which use the current name). Calling these strong doesn't mean all of the other votes need to be discredited, but those were the only comments which tried to actually make a showing of what is commonly used beyond ngrams. I think no consensus would have been a better close, I think the move is probably technically correct and there's a little more support for the move after weighting, but that relisting for another week would be the best option. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting I'm in favour of a relist because the result is in fact the correct one, looking at the evidence I believe Côte d'Ivoire is used more often than Ivory Coast in English. Relisting would simply allow for better arguments not related to n-grams. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (mostly uninvolved, although I did apparently support the Ivory Coast name in a 2011 RM). Per SportingFlyer above, and the points I made to the closer on the article talk page, I think this close amounts to a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE, where the closer is reaching a conclusion not supported by the arguments made. The vote count was split, which means by default it's going to close as no consensus, unless one side or the other really makes significantly better points in policy or evidence. Here, I just didn't see that. There's a slight lead for the French name on ngrams, but it was clearly shown by opponents that media sources still heavily use the English name. Ngrams are useful certainly and I often regard them as the gold Standard for source analysis, but when ample evidence from alternative sources is presented, the ngrams cease to be the only game in town. In short, the supporters did no present a case so watertight that the opposes were nullified, and no consensus is the only conclusion one can reach from this debate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved) and turn Red Slash's close into a !vote, or just overturn as no consensus. I agree with Amakuru that this looks like a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE, and the closer was incorrect in discarding all evidence of common usage other than ngrams. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Endorse as closer. I definitely didn't supervote--I would personally prefer Ivory Coast. Listen, in any decent contested request like this, you're going to have lots of evidence on either side. But that's literally why we have aggregators like ngrams. Of course tons of RS use Ivory Coast. But more RS use Cote d'Ivoire. With that said, I stand behind this close 100%; no compelling arguments in favor of Ivory Coast were presented at all other than the arguments claiming that Ivory Coast is the most common name in English, and those arguments are founded in nonreality. Red   Slash  05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (involved) Where do you get "more RS use Cote d'Ivoire"? More books that google has use Côte d'Ivoire... that's it! Trending on Google has Ivory Coast landslide way ahead in the US and in the UK. India is also an English-speaking mountain-like 5 year pattern in favor of Ivory Coast. Google is only one tool and you seem be treating it as a godsend, and that's not right. That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This was no consensus to move. And think of something else... I would bet that many people listed with an article at Wikipedia with a diacritic in their spelling are crushed by the standard English spelling in Google ngrams like Grand Slam champion Goran Ivanišević. Some like 100% to 0% like Wimbledon champion Jelena Janković. We aren't even allowed to use the standard English spelling here at Wikipedia for these people. Per your ngram affinity they should all be changed. So google ngrams are one tool, google trends are another tool, newspapers are another tool, tv/radio is another tool, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I support a relist I'd overturn the discussion based just on that response alone, as it's absolutely clear that there was evidence presented that Ivory Coast is still continually used by major news orgs. Whether it's enough evidence to support a move is a different question, but it's now obvious the close was clearly erroneous. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ngrams is only an aggregator for books, and its corpus completely ignores things like media usage, web usage, and scholarly usage. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Overturn (to no consensus). (Uninvolved) I do not read a consensus.  The first fault is a too brief nomination, given the long tortuous history of title debate for this article.  The nomination did not present enough data,a Dan did not summarise the history of the same discussion.  Participants presented data, but it’s a mess, hard to follow, and strong points are being made by both sides disjointedly. The close is argued, but the closers arguments are the closers opinions are are not reflecting the discussion, as as such the close is a Supervote.  Red Slash should take to !voting more in contested discussions instead of bold closing. I recommend a careful, thorough, fresh nomination, with a logical presentation of the known data and arguments and a summary of the many preceding discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (to no consensus) as involved move review nominator. Per listing and in answer to closer above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (involved), as correct on policy. This is clearly one of those discussions where feelings are so strongly locked in on opposing sides that it is impossible to close it at all, with any outcome, without some participants being unhappy and initiating a move review. So, here we are. I salute those discussion closers who are willing to close these hard cases. Without you, the backlogs would be eternal. BD2412  T 13:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved): per BD2412 above. A country title change was obviously going to be a difficult close no matter the outcome. Some people will always be unhappy but that isn't the closer's problem. I do not see a supervote here and it was certainly open long enough. I probably would've left it for an admin, but there's no policy error there. Endorse.  C F A   💬  14:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (and return to original name). I was not involved in the RM but since the votes were about equal, it clearly makes sense to do a no consensus result instead of moving. It's clear that this should have remained at its longstanding name since its been kept that way for 12 years. Ngrams shouldn't be the only thing used to determine which is the common name. It's unfortunate that it stopped being covered from 2020 onwards but since it has hundreds of years of data, it doesn't really matter for historic stuff. Côte d'Ivoire is not Costa Rica, namely because its never been known as the Rich Coast. Same with Stade de France, Gare du Nord and Tour de France. While Côte d'Ivoire has been around for long (circa 1986), media outlets and general discussion still refer to it by its translated name, especially for Germanic and Romance languages. It's safe to say Côte d'Ivoire is used in Russian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc, at least in official contexts. JuniperChill (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
 * Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The close was overly reliant on ngrams, which are based solely on books, at the expense of other sources. Jessintime (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (Additional comment: While there are several calls for relisting, I don't believe it is appropriate in this case. The discussion was open almost two weeks and nearly 20 editors participated, a turnout that is higher than usual for a requested move, so I don't think extending this request will resolve the matter. My suggestion would be to come back in six months with better evidence less reliant on ngrams. Jessintime (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC))
 * Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved), per Fyunck(click), Amakuru, SmokeyJoe, JuniperChill and Jessintime as well as per comments by SportingFlyer and Ahecht. When a Wikipedia entry is at this level of importance, the consensus is expected to be overwhelming. Here, there were eight votes in favor of the move to Côte d'Ivoire and nine votes in favor of retaining Ivory Coast. Clearly, no consensus, even if some of the votes in favor of Ivory Coast have been described as not being solidly based. As for the inherent merit of Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire, it can be certainly argued that such city name changes as Kiev → Kyiv and Odessa → Odesa or such country name changes as Rhodesia → Zimbabwe and South West Africa→ Namibia were more readily accepted, being based upon letting go of cultural oppression and colonial past. On the other hand, although official sources have accepted that Turkey's English name is Türkiye and Ivory Coast's English name is Côte d'Ivoire, that acceptance has not made the two revised country names WP:COMMONNAMES in the English-speaking world. To use general examples, it would be as if Croatia announced that its English name is now Hrvatska, Italy announced that its English name is now Italia or Poland announced that its English name is now Polska. As a final point, it may be noted that no English-language country exonym uses accents and / or diacritics which makes Türkiye and Côte d'Ivoire even more problematic as putative common names. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Requiring an "overwhelming" consensus based solely on the "level of importance" would basically guarantee that an important article at a suboptimal title would never be moved to its optimal title. Look at the eight discussions over six years that were required to move Yoghurt to Yogurt, or the ten discussions over eight years to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton; both have finally resulted in stable titles that, in retrospect, would have been optimal all along. BD2412  T 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that did happen before with this very article in 2012 and that consensus has remained stable since. —  AjaxSmack 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since English Wikipedia is consensus-based, we would likely expect important titles such as this one to at least have a convincing consensus if not an "overwhelming" one. The first Kiev → Kyiv RM was in July 2007, but did not succeed until September 2020 when nearly all media outlets were already using "Kyiv", although it was being used by U.S. government sources and the UN well before 2007 and various ngrams had been confirming its increasing usage. As for the matter at hand, the insistence upon diacritics in the Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire and Turkey → Türkiye proposals makes those even less likely to be accepted into general use, with few if any media outlets in the English-speaking world using those forms. Ultimately, each set of title changes brings its own set of circumstances. Geographic names carry historical, nationalistic and linguistic baggage, while main headers for current events tend to be dynamic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a WP:RM process. It allows for notification of affected projects, and relists of discussions by any editor who thinks more time is needed for discussion. We have no rule, nor any mechanism, for deeming articles "important titles" for this purpose, nor for giving any such articles special treatment. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump asking whether we should have such a policy in place. So far the consensus seems to be against it. BD2412  T 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I recently submitted a song title RM {at Talk:Friendly Persuasion (Thee I Love)} that was moved seven days later with no participation. Obviously, Yoghurt → Yogurt elicited much greater interest, but is still unlikely to compete in importance with a world-class city or, for that matter, a country name. Of course, designating a title as "important" is in itself a likely mischaracterization. Perhaps, "controversial title" or "high-volume participation title" may be a more intuitive description which would carry with it much greater expectation of a strong consensus, making the Village Pump discussion most welcome indeed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To describe to discussion leading up to moving the article to Ivory Coast in 2012 as an "overwhelming consensus" is quite the leap. By my count the !vote was 29-27, and a subsequent MR was inconclusive, with no consensus established to endorse the move.  TDL (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus or relist (involved).  There was no appearance to date of consensus in the discussion and the closer's only substantive rationale was a Google Ngram plot, which is only a small part of determining a common name.  —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus or relist (uninvolved), per all the arguments raised in favour of these options above, especially by SportingFlyer, Amakuru, SmokeyJoe, JuniperChill, Roman Spinner, and AjaxSmack. There is clearly no consensus in favour of a rename as of now. Maybe a clearer consensus favouring either the old or the new name will emerge after a relist, so that might be worth a try. Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist The proper course of action would be to let the discussion run longer, as it's evident now that more people would join in. Simply changing the result based on votes is pointless, as it doesn't truly resolve the issue (there are rules and precedents for this). In my opinion, arguing that n-grams are merely specialized books and that we should also gather information from non-specialized sources like "how young people talk on Facebook, or rather Instagram or TikTok" diminishes the value of Wikipedia. This is similar to arguing that Côte d'Ivoire doesn't sound English. However, it is stated here that move reviews are not intended to "reargue debates about page moves," so relisting is the correct choice. (Reopen the discussion, but with a warning for editors supporting the move that it is necessary to find something beyond n-gram, otherwise they will definitely not succeed) Chrz (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC) EDITED Chrz (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC) Ad "The discussion was open almost two weeks and nearly 20 editors participated" it does not deserve to be relisted: A high-profile article like one about a country certainly deserves enough time to address all objections and involve as many editors as possible to lend weight to the decision. Why? Because according to the COMMONNAME guidelines all "related" articles where the name appears need to be renamed after a country is renamed And the vast majority of occurrences of the name in article text also need to be changed - according to Wikipedia's COMMONNAME guidelines, there cannot be more than one name for a country. (To paraphrase and exaggerate) Chrz (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). This MRV is yet another example of French language erasure on Wikipedia (see Quebec as one of the most blatant examples). The problem is that it was at Ivory Coast for so long.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so I understand this correctly, "French language erasure on Wikipedia" in this case refers to the é? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * French language erasure is when a French-speaking place has a different name in English, apparently. Is Mexico not being at México yet another example of Spanish language erasure on Wikipedia? Kyoto Grand (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. The official name is Québec, not Quebec.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is totally irrelevant, as we go by English common names. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What the heck does this post have to do with whether a proper closing was made? This is just an editor from French-speaking Quebec that hates the term Ivory Coast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it's a good sign that the tides may be turning. My Québec example is because the official name of the province has the accent aigu (and thus it should be the name of the article), and the official name of Côte d'Ivoire isn't Ivory Coast (and thus the article name isn't Ivory Coast). What English language RSes say don't matter in terms of French language place names.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a serious argument. Maybe it'd have some cachet in the 1400s when English court officials still wrote in French, but it's 2024, 95% of non-Canadians pronounce Quebec with a /kwə/, and the norms of the French language are about as relevant to the English name of the Ivory Coast as they are to the pronunciation of the word 'judgement'. And it's called an acute accent. Kyoto Grand (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. Of course English-language sources matter. Should Somalia be located at Soomaaliya? Should China be located at 中国?  C F A   💬  15:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the usage of "États-Unis" in French count as English erasure? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? "the tides may be turning?" What, that the world is universally speaking French now? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (nominator) appears to be the solution, I can understand no consensus as votes were even and if it had to be closed now I'd say that would be the most accurate outcome. My bludgeoning of discussion certainly malformed the RM and I'd be against endorsing it when the margins are so small. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse – I would've closed it the same way. The "Ivory Coast is the English name" argument is, as points out, unevidenced in the RM and borders on tautological. I've noticed a lot, in similar RMs, an argument that USEENGLISH dictates we must use English words in article titles, which is a completely incorrect reading of the policy; article titles, by and large, use the most common name in use in English, not the most common name which is rendered in the English language. Hence Stade de France and Olympiastadion (Berlin), not Stadium of France and Olympic Stadium (Berlin), for example. Given the well-argued rationales in favour of a move – frankly, it was a matter of if-not-when for Côte d'Ivoire – and the faulty arguments against the move, I think a move result is definitely justifiable, and like I said, I would've gone the same way. Sceptre (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus. Can't assign extra weight to the ngram-based argument relative to "ngram skeptics" when the latter bring up some kind of evidence of their own, such as a list of sources. Consensus could have formed in spite of this methodological disagreement, but it didn't. Oppose relisting; there's no basis for that.—Alalch E. 11:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any consensus. The vote-tally is fairly evenly split, usage in major news outlets is split, the Ngram usage has a slight preference for Côte d'Ivoire but does not clearly mandate one or the other.  The "official name" and "use English" arguments seem to balance out.  Unless this is listed on WP:CENT, I don't expect a relist would find consensus. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn. (with opposition to a relist) With a good deal of respect to this closer, in this case I think I would have closed as "no consensus". Editor Roman S. said it all above, and judging by the history of requested moves for this article, and admitting that my personal preference is for the French spelling, I would have to agree that the English spelling belongs at the top of this Wikipedia entry.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (involved) - The primary argument to overturn the close is that while there was agreement that the ngram results showed that Cote d'Ivoire was more common, this is not conclusive as these results are restricted to books and Ivory Cost is more common in other sources, which was not taken into account. That's not true.  As the closer pointed out, the issue is that those that opposed the move largely relied on dismissing the evidence that showed Cote d'Ivoire was more common, without providing alternative evidence that objectively showed that Ivory Cost was more common.  Yes, there was a dozen or so links provided that showed Ivory Coasts was used by for example major news media, but these were offset by a dozen or so other links that showed that Cote d'Ivoire was also used by major news media, Britannica, Google Maps, etc.  The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that it supports that usage is mixed, but does not clearly indicate which name is more common.  Especially so since for such a small sample size is highly subject to cherry picking of sources, unlike the ngram results which are more objective as they consider a much broader set of sources.
 * I'd also reiterate my point from the RM that even if the evidence isn't conclusive that Cote d'Ivoire is the common name, it's clear that usage is split and that the evidence provided did not show that Ivory Coast is the widely used common name. WP:NCGN states that the local name should be used in cases where there is no widely accepted common name in English, so in this case we should defer to Cote d'Ivoire in the absence of such evidence.  TDL (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous peoples

 * (Discussion with closer)

This was a protacted, verbose, contentious discussion with both sides deeply entrenched, and yet Red Slash moved the article and stated, There was absolutely not a consensus. Nonetheless, Red Slash moved the article diff] The article had previously been at Genocide of Indigenous peoples, and a previous discussion to move to Genocide of indigenous peoples had failed.. On their talk page, Red Slash wrote, Yes, WP consensuses don't need to be unaminous, but this was not a consensus. Being a highly controversial discussion, this should have had an administrator close the discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

PAGE]]) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment(involved) Assuming for the moment that a nocon outcome is possible, then the close asserts that there is a stable uncapitalized I title but this seems not to be the case. The move to a capitalized I was done on 7 August 2023 and there was a subsequent RM to move it to an uncapitalized I that was closed on 7 November as "not moved". Then it seems that a capitalized I is indeed the stable title, it's not just weeks or even a couple of months. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The trouble with this discussion is that we have two competing points of view on a topic where views have changed over time, and we've reached a consensus in a rather conservative manner - namely, the SMcCandlish argument that the term is used consistently in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. While it's a generally good rule, Wikipedia often struggles to navigate change as a result, as the site is a trailing indicator of what's happening in the real world, and these discussions can get very political. However, reading the discussion carefully and then doing some fact finding, I don't see a consensus here. Those opposing base their opposition on style guides, which now consistently recommend using the uppercase I in English usage. Many of the support !votes provide opinions without providing evidence-based support or even referencing the argument against - the style guides clearly show this is not a common adjective, for instance - and those opposing generally, for the most part, cited the style guides. (It also doesn't help that SMcCandlish provided a link to one of the opposition votes which was mostly just opinion showing lowercase is used more in academia since 2020 - your mileage may vary, but every single one of those articles on the first page of my results uses a capital I, with the exception of one journal title which uses a capital I in text, but every word in the title is lowercase, and the only one on the second page which uses a lowercase i was originally published in 1998 but revised in 2020.) Downweighting the votes on both sides where the facts don't match the opinion, you get a no consensus result. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it were "no consensus", the article would be moved back to its longstanding title. Red   Slash  04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true, see my comment below. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). "Arguably there is consensus to move" is not a particularly strong closing statement. Sure "many people agreed" with lowercasing "i" in this instance, but many people also disagreed, and the closer fails to explain why the opposition can be discounted. The claim that "the longstanding title lacks the capital "I", so this article would have to be moved back, anyway" is also wrong, because it ignores a requested move from October that was closed in favor of the upper-case title. Finally, Red Slash's response here when questioned about the close is condescending, contemptuous, and makes me question whether he should be closing any requested moves, let alone controversial ones. Jessintime (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (involved) From what I can see there was actually a clear consensus to move with strong arguments. Nothing arguable about it. The close was correct although the phrasing could have been stronger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse: (uninvolved) Appears to be clear consensus to move from my observation. TarnishedPathtalk</b> 08:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you care to complete the Move Review process by tagging the RM discussion itself so involved editors can actually see it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I've done it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My apologies; I’ve never had to initiate a move review before. Yuchitown (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse per Necrothesp. My reading of the discussion was that there is consensus to move, but the closer could've explained it much better. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Comment (involved) It was difficult to create a consensus because of one user (Gwillhickers) failing to understand Don't bludgeon the process, a number of editors, including myself, warned them about it: "Bludgeoning at Genocide of Indigenous peoples RFC" diff of them removing the discussion. They had contributed #1 30% of the edits to the talkpage and also #2 edits by text size (16.2%). This move should be overturned and administration action involved to ensure a less contentious discussion. oncamera  <i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i> 22:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn to no consensus ( I'm possibly involved? I participated in the RfC above this one at the same Talk and have discussed this capitalization elsewhere on WP, but did not join this discussion. ) Unfortunately too much of the close rationale lacks support, from the absence of an explanation as to why the corollary, 'many people agreed that, when dealing with all peoples who are indigenous to a given area, the "i" should be UPPERcase', isn't just as worthy of a conclusion (despite also being an accurate evaluation of the discussion), to the fact that there was a previous move request that affirmed the current capital-I title (thus negating any pleas to some "longstanding" lowercase consensus). Their response to the initial discussion on their talk (the second half of their responding message) leaves much to be desired as well, as it is full of equivocations and conceded points, which pretty strongly indicate a lack of consensus in the move discussion. Indeed, the discussion itself contains solid arguments on both titles, with plenty of support for both. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse as closer. I concede that the close was lacking. Policies/guidelines that were cited in favor of the capitalized title include things like WP:INDIGENOUS, which doesn't support capitalization of "indigenous" except when specifically dealing with Native Americans. When not in that specific context, consensus was that the common usage was uncapitalized. Red   Slash  04:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:INDIGENOUS calls for capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people; no where does it say that is limited only to Native Americans. Yuchitown (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just like to point out that after the debate started, editors started to remove information from WP:Indigenous so that it couldn't be used in the debate (diff) and attempts to change information at other MOS to reflect their arguments. It has lead to numerous changes to Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) (diff), Manual of Style/Capital letters (diff), and an attempt to remove tribal citizenship from WP:MOSBIO (the length discussion that followed). I can't think of a time on Wikipedia where editors started to change all the policies to attempt to undermine style guides and tribal sovereignty over a Move Request discussion. These recent edits by those opposing capitalization on so many policies pages feels like an attempt at Gaming the system. oncamera  <i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i> 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding these edits, the policy WP:PGBOLD (its second paragraph) may be of help to whomever ends up closing this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand how I got involved in this RM. I came in as a neutral, just scrolling through the list on WP:RM when I came across this one. I read through the discussion and saw claims that the changes to WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS were inserted without following the proper procedures for obtaining community consensus. I researched the history of the discussions and confirmed that those claims were true, so I reverted the illegitimate changes. If there's any gaming the system here, it took place in August 2023 - a massive sequence of undiscussed moves of "indigenous" to "Indigenous" by a single editor to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI that would be very difficult to undo. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also see that your comment in the last move request for this same page was merely a request for information and you did not ultimately share your thoughts at that time. But I don't see how August 2023 page moves could be seen as gaming the system of a May-July 2024 move request. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (to no consensus). This means that the title reverts to the longstanding stable original “Genocide of indigenous peoples”, the status quo. Advise Red Slash that he appears to be regressing to headstrong impetuous mindsets when closing, and his replies at User talk:Red Slash read poorly, boastful and arrogant.  An NAC-er should not be boasting about being taken so often to MRV.  If your closes result in lengthy MRV discussions, you are not helping by doing these closes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the status quo, though, there was a move request back to that title in October 2023 and it was not moved, so the title with the capital I is indeed the stable title. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 7. That complicates things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should have an academic bias on things of this nature and follow modern scholarship norms. Simply surprised to see the rejection by so many of academic protocols. Moxy 🍁 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTJOURNAL says different ("Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.") — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The quoted section from NOTJOURNAL is clearly in reference to academic jargon and not capitalization conventions. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging that up - I'd forgotten about that. Since we're at MR anyways, I think we can discuss the validity of that RM as well. There were 4 supports for reverting the move and 7 opposes, plus a comment from me questioning whether the initial capitalization was ever discussed. Since a substantial portion of the opposition's argument hinges on the changes to MOS:RACECAPS and WP:TRIBE which were made without adequate community consensus, that portion should be thrown out, leaving behind "no consensus" rather than "not moved". -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate to directly challenge another (8-month-old) Move Request close within an existing Move Review, especially without all the usual steps required, such as discussion with the closer prior to the challenge? -Pinchme123 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just a thought experiment, since I do believe there has been consensus in the present RM, rendering this point moot. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was crystal clear consensus in that move request, though, to the point where your 10 June revert on WP:INDIGENOUS may have been the incorrect edit. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a "thought experiment", it's "appropriate to directly challenge" or at least discuss the October 2023 RM since that nomination was malformed (it should have been WP:RMUM-based to put the burden of the argument on those favoring capital '), was based evidently on guidelines in flux and was closed with a "not moved" that did not mention consensus. Though the !votes in that discussion favored the capital ', the process far from ideal, so saying that the last stable title was the one with a lowercase i is not that unreasonable. — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus there was clear enough that WP:RMUM wouldn't apply, though. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Both the nomination and the closing rationale were sound and based on WP guidelines that tend to favor lowercase.  Importantly (to me), this is a WP:RMUM case of reverting this undiscussed move, so an overturn here should also result in a reverion to the last stable title, i.e. the lowercase i.  — <span style="border:1px solid #004705;background:#168c1d;padding:2px;color:#e9ede9;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The move was discussed and affirmed. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That may not in fact be true - I've replied in SmokeyJoe's section. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll respond there, but am noting here that I disagree with you completely there. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (involved) . There is a clear numerical majority in support of the move, so to close the discussion as anything other than "moved", it would require either the side with the numerical majority to be particularly weak. For example, most of the WP:NCROY-related RMs were closed in favor of titling monarchs as Edward IV without the country unless disambiguation was required, often despite the lack of a clear majority or even with a minority of the !votes at the RM. The difference here is that while the guideline changes at WP:NCROY were passed with a clear community consensus with a well-advertised RfC, the changes to WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:CAPS from 2022 were not made with the support of any sort of consensus; the few discussions that did take place were never properly closed and most likely would have been closed as "no consensus" had they been, meaning no change to guidelines. Therefore, given the lack of clear policy prescription on what to do, we rely on first principles. While both sides gave good arguments, one side clearly managed to convince more people to agree with them. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Supporters collectively had a clear majority and reasoned justification for their theory of the case; I think "moved" is a fair reading of consensus. In the event that the move review finds no consensus, however, the status quo ante is the capitalized title, which has been in place for almost a year and was affirmed in the October 2023 RM. The October 2023 RM validly represented the consensus at the time. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn - If we are not going to follow academic scholarship in this then at least let's get the close right. It should have been closed as "No consensus". Both sides had compelling arguments, even the closer stated this. If the decision is that "No consensus" means we do not have a policy of capitalization so be it. As stated and restated by myself, I will always capitalize in my edits and discussions regardless of the disrespect shown Indigenous people and the incivility directed at particularly one side of these discussions. -- A Rose Wolf  14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. The nomination was clear, and the closure was concise, to the point and reasonably spot on. In addition, the closing instructions were well-followed. I am mystified by people who read things into things that just aren't there. The lowercasing of a common noun that is not a proper noun has absolutely nothing to do with respect nor disrespect of any peoples. If that were true, then the people in the US can disrespect a lot of {p}residents as well as people in the UK may dishonor many {k}ings and {q}ueens. Sorry if Anybody here incorrectly thinks that I've disrespected Anybody. WP can be so much fun at times, eh?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 17:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That remark was incredibly unfunny and displays a lack of good faith while ignoring the actual discussion and closing. Yuchitown (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm truly mystified. My first two sentences above take care of "the actual discussion and closing", so no, they were not ignored. The rest? Just a mere opinion. Feel better, friend and fellow volunteer editor, Yuchitown.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn - to "no consensus", as stated above, There was absolutely not a consensus I fully agree with this. The closer's justification had little merit "The consensus was broad-ish, though not overly strong. Because of this, I concede that a reasonable person might view it as if there were no consensus.". Those opposed to the move presented strong arguments and presented numerous examples showing that current reliable sources, style guides, newspapers, dictionaries, academic literature, n-grams, etc. capitalize "I" in the word, "Indigenous" when referring to people (rather than rocks and plants) - this is the preferred style. (To my mind, lumping together Indigenous people with rocks and plants is questionable and is borderline dehumanizing.) In the past, lower case was accepted, but times have changed. The argument for the move was bludgeoned repeatedly claiming the opposers were displaying "favoritism" and POV which was not the case. Numerically, there were 4 supports for reverting the move to ;over-case "i" and 7 opposes arguing for letting the upper case "I" stand. Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse (involved) Broad consensus based on lengthy discussions, the review largely hinges on a previous discussion with fewer editors involved. Killuminator (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Irish hunger strike

 * (Discussion with closer)

On the basis of |1923_Irish_hunger_strikes|1920_Cork_hunger_strike page views, 1981 Irish hunger strike is a clear primary topic by usage. The pages "1920 Cork hunger strike" and "1923 Irish hunger strikes" were both created in 2021 and have 37 and 42 incoming links respectively, while "1981 Irish hunger strike" was created in 2004 and has 1,162. Until recent changes, "Irish hunger strike" had been a stable redirect to "1981 Irish hunger strike" since 2007.

While the two opposing editors cited "recentism" as a reason to disregard that evidence, WP:RECENTISM is an essay without the status of guideline or policy, and little attempt was made to justify the assertion. The most recent of these events took place over 40 years ago. The Irish media describe the 1920 and 1923 hunger strikes as "forgotten", and "among the least well remembered" of their kind.

The move request was initially closed as "not moved" without further comment. When I asked the mover to consider reopening the discussion, the comment, "Consensus there is no primary topic for 'Irish hunger strike'. The events in 1920 and 1923 in particular have a long-term significance similar to that of the events in 1981" was added. My feeling is that, given the lack of evidence for that long-term significance, the evidence of page views should have been given more weight, per WP:RMCIDC. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this second attempt to move by the same editor, endorse the current name WP:RECENTISM. Hunger strikes from 1920 and 1923 (more then a hundred years ago) does not gain the same internet coverage as the most recent one. But they were just as important in Irish history as the 1981 strike. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse retaining the current name. With multiple hunger strikes in Irish history, there is logic in keeping a consistent format (per the article naming WP:CRITERIA); in fact, the current title ticks all the boxes of CRITERIA and is more clear and logical. So much for "I guess I'll let it go". - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So much for "I guess I'll let it go": Well, I thought about it for a week and decided it was worth exploring further. Please note again though that this move request has nothing to do with the consistent names of the various articles: it's just about the correct location for the disambiguation page. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved). WP:RECENTISM is an essay and, even if it weren't, it strains credulity to apply it to something that happened 40 years ago. Given how few editors actually participated (though there was certainly a lot of back and forth between them) I think a relist is appropriate rather than overturning it. Jessintime (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved) there was no support at all for this move in that move discussion, and overturning would essentially require a supervote. Best course of action here is to try again in a few months' time. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This closure was reasonable and in line with the closing instructions. A waiting period of one year or so before trying again to effect a name change might better ensure success.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If an 11:1 majority of page views isn't a convincing argument now, why should it be convincing a year from now? If "recentism" is a valid objection 43 years after the fact, why should it be invalid after 44? The only likely difference is that a different small and random group of editors might see the question differently, but that's a coin toss. Frankly, my time is more valuable than that. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Page views is not everything to measure the importance. And it favours recent events above older events. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence. The second is debatable, but this probably isn't the place for that debate. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

ABC News (United States)

 * (Discussion with closer)

Ignoring the "per nom" and "as above" arguments, I do not see a clear consensus. It looks like a 50-50 to me. So, as other users pointed at BillMammal's user talk page, I believe that that this discussion should be reopened and relisted. GTrang (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse. I believe that the arguments in favor of moving the page that I brought up are stronger than the arguments in opposition to moving the page that were brought up. It is true that more individuals supported moving the page than opposed moving the page (it was over a 2-1 margin in favor of moving). A bean count, of course, is not enough; consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. But since the quality of the arguments made by those involved in supporting the move (including myself) were higher than those of those who opposed the move, I see a consensus attained, and I believe that the close faithfully reflects the consensus attained in the move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've notified those who participated in the requested move and also those who participated in the ensuing discussion on closer's talk about this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (uninvolved). Clearly not a solid consensus for a move of this nature. For reasons, see here. There have been many RMs in the past. One as poorly attended and poorly argued as this one, open for only one week, does not create a consensus for a massive change. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The move request was opened on 18 June 2024 and closed on 3 July 2024. That is to say, the discussion was not open for only one week, but was instead open for over two weeks. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I was looking at something dated 24 June, but evidently not the close... Srnec (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation, and even those not by much - and generally, seven participants is a good number for an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on poorly argued. For example: The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. I must be missing something because this clearly establishes the US broadcaster as the more watched. The support comment that oppose arguments have a very US-centric worldview bears no relationship to the actual preceding oppose comments. To this we can add per nom and as above. The whole discussion is so short it is very easy to read in full. Which I did after I saw the link corrections in my watchlist. I was flabbergasted that this counted as consensus. In a very different case, it might. But these are highly visible articles with a history of RMs. (And just for the record, I am neither Australian nor American.) Srnec (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To explain my consideration of that as closer, I saw that as evidence backing the supporters claims that there was no primary topic; they don't establish which is more popular - more significant - because they aren't directly comparable they do establish that both have very large audiences that are comparable in size.
 * Importantly, this wasn't disputed by the editors opposing the move, one of whom even interpreted the figures as meaning that the Australian source is more popular. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Going to chime in here, using views to determine an article merger/move makes no sense in this case. There needs to be a better argument developed. This move discussion was a lame duck one (no offense) based on the number of views a network / program received. Soafy234 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved). I originally outlined my thoughts on the closer's talk page after the various moves started to popup in my watchlist. I don't think there was a clear consensus and it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted. The non-admin closer (BilledMammal) gave equal weight to the two "per nom"/"as above" comments as the other 2 support comments & the nominator (they stated: "If someone writes an effective argument, it would be a waste of editor time to require those who agree with that argument to rewrite it rather than saying "per x""). But this shouldn't come down to a WP:VOTE & should instead be judged based on the quality of the discussion. Remove those two "per nom" comments and it becomes 2 support and 2 oppose with BilledMammal as a tie breaker determining the discussion should be closed as "support"; there also wasn't really a discussion between the editors who stated their thoughts. There really only seemed to be two higher quality comments (one oppose, one support) arguing about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so I think further discussion to determine what the primary topic is would be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, when closing RM's the nominator is also considered to support the proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

PAGE</b>]]) 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist pointedly not because I think the closure was wrong at the time, but because the ensuing discussion on BilledMammal's talk page should have made clear that interested editors had not fully had their say. The closure was procedurally correct, but I don't think "you snooze, you lose" is the right answer in this situation, particularly since there's no evidence people were trying to game the system by waiting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Extraordinary Writ. I don't have much to say here, and I certainly have no opinion on the underlying matter, but if I had been asked to close that request I would have relisted it. The subsequent discussion on the editor's talk page made that abundantly clear, IMO. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One concern I have with a relist is that it means participation won't be representative of the community. This is because editors who see the link corrections are more likely to check the discussion if they oppose the move, because they may want to overturn the result. In contrast, those who support the move are likely to consider it settled. This can be seen in comments like this one. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How ... How in the world is two weeks not enough time?? RM policy is for a minimum of a week. Come on, man, people had enough time. People miss out on important move requests all the time, you shrug and move on because we can't keep every request open for months waiting for everyone to chime in. Red   Slash  05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Red Slash There is no policy, or even guideline, that states that RMs should be open for a minimum of a week. WP:RM is a process page and WP:RMCLOSE is an essay. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Overturn/relist I wasn't involved in the discussion but figured it would certainly be a lot longer considering the past discussions to move American Broadcasting Company to the ABC title itself were a lot deeper, more involved, and considered the gravity of moving an article with WLH numbers in the thousands. But looking at a couple of the votes specifically, one of them was from an editor with fewer than 200 edits (most of them in mainly one talk page, not at all in article space for several years), one was from a British editor with no skin in the game complaining about the opposers as having a 'US-centric worldview' and nothing else, and then one simply saying 'as above'. Considering that the WLH for either the US or AU orgs are well into the ten-thousands combined with sources, this definitely needed much more notice and much more time, and much better consensus than 'per nom' (see Disney Jr. for an example of a recent discussion which was properly done even if I opposed the move as pointless because we're not a marketing arm of The Walt Disney Company or any corporation). This doesn't involve an obscure Asian version of an MTV video channel whose links are less than 50 at the most with none of its website being used to source items, but two major news organizations which are used in thousands of articles as sources, and the close and overall botching of the move definitely requires a much deeper discussion.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect to one was from a British editor, I didn't think that we discounted arguments on the basis of nationality. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * or if they have "no skin in the game". <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Red-tailed hawk @TarnishedPath thanks for the back up. Not sure what 'skin in the game' is, sounds like an Americanism to me. I'm off for a cup of Earl Grey and some crumpets now, followed by possibly some fish and chips and delivering a few googlies. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. There appears to be a good bit of overreacting to this move request, and after reading all of it, I still cannot figure out why. Seems clearcut to me, and I would have closed this RM the exact same way. Who cares about the 5/2 count, the args were greater on the support side. This closure was perfectly reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. What's with all the freakin' freak outs and block for??? Please, everybody just calm down!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 01:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I believe there was a very good reason for the block, and your arguments are a bit on the emotional side. When an editor is asked to stop, they should probably stop--and note that I unblocked immediately after being assured that it would not continue, for which I am grateful. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You did only give me four minutes to stop, which personally I felt was a little short given it took me five minutes to notice, but nevermind BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You were warned by that you were in violation of the bot policy 10 hours before the block. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Based on discussion at WT:BOTPOL, I am not convinced I was in violation of the BOTPOL; this seems to fall under what is acceptable for user scripts, though just for the benefit of hiding it from watchlists it will be better to run larger tasks on a bot account in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me please, editor, I really am not the emotional one in this discussion, and have noted a good deal of seemingly unjustified and heated emotion on the closer's talk page. I have asked for a calm down, and I would dearly appreciate it if everybody would just dial it down a notch or two, so this move review can get to the gist of this matter. Your block of the closer, one of WP's best page movers, appears to have been just a teensy bit unjustified, but please don't go into it here. I don't really need an explanation, but my talk page is always open, when and if necessary.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the block was about stopping the script since unlike a bot, there wasn't a clear off switch. Regardless of how this discussion goes, a lot of editors have flagged more efficient tools BilledMammal (and various page lurkers) can use going forwards. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You, and other editors, may be interested in participating in participating in this discussion that I opened at WT:BOTPOL about the link correction feature of Move+. I believe that it is currently the most efficient tool for this, although there are some modifications and additional features that I intend to add to improve it further.
 * Regarding the block, if I hadn't been active at the time I would have agreed with it - before stepping away I even considered leaving a note saying "I'm currently AFK. If Move+ starts breaking things, or otherwise needs to stop, block me" - but since I was active I wish they had waited a little longer. Waiting ten or fifteen minutes would have been reasonable in my opinion. However, it doesn't really matter, and this is the wrong location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved) the discussion was active for more than 7 days, the minimum required. A RM banner was placed on the article for the duration of the discussion. Given the high amount of visitors, one would think more would participate in the discussion. No further notifications are required in the RM process. The last substantial discussion was years ago and consensus can change over time. This nom was backed by figures rather than 'it should be this way' nom like we saw in the previous discussions. After determining the quality of arguments, the close is reasonable and I would have closed the discussion in the same direction. (although I would utilise the aid of other editors to help update the links via dabsort tool. In my experience when dealing with similar moves that had thousands of links, there would be a minority portion of them wrongly linked in the first place and this would be an opportunity to correct the links). – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (uninvolved). I don't think this move was appropriate considering by far, the American station is the primary topic, and gets much more page views than the Australian one.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse (uninvolved): It's clear from the RM discussion that those supporting the move were both numerically superior and had stronger arguments than those who opposed the move. Consensus in the discussion is clear. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Consensus policy states: Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. I am only seeing one argument that uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the original discussion supporting the move, which is that of the nominator. It seems disingenuous to suggest one side had "stronger arguments" given that. I would be interested to know which multiple arguments you are seeing that I am not. Οἶδα (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw no strength of argument in the oppose votes. I did see a couple of move voters rebutting the oppose votes, without answer. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist : Besides the dearth of explanations (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines), the original discussion had little to no actual back-and-forth. You create a requested move discussion and wait patiently but receive only scant engagement to this end. Irritating, I know. Nonetheless inappropriate for a non-admin closure of this magnitude after such little development. Nothing about the discussion could be described as fully developed. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves that. So I am inclined to co-sign 's message. The discussion is evidently waiting to happen. Unfortunately it took watchlists getting loaded with thousands of backlink changes to awaken it. Οἶδα (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One week is typical. Two weeks is long. This was longer than that. I wouldn't have blinked at closing it. Red   Slash  05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse per User:Paine Ellesworth. The objections to the RM on the talk page seem to have been a lot of excitement that some procedure or convention wasn't followed, but a less excited/excitable look at this situation doesn't make it obvious that there is anything that wasn't followed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn (uninvolved): It's clear that the move was rushed. It was opened only 2 weeks before and no previous editors that opposed it before were notified that a new review was ongoing. Previous consensus thus still needs to be included unless new information is presented that invalidates that previous consensus. No such new information was presented. Ergzay (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks is not rushed for a RM, as they generally go for a week. Also, there is absolutely no policy requiring previous editors that opposed be notified. In fact only notifying editors who opposed previously could be considered WP:CANVASSING if editors who were previously supportive of a move weren't also notified. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 07:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath In the last two reviews there was only opposing viewpoints so that would still be a full notification of all previously involved editors. Ergzay (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And the previous two RMs had less participation. If you were suggesting that all previous RM participants should have been notified (which there is exactly zero policy requirement for) then I would expect to go back further than two RMs. In any case that is not a policy based argument that there was anything deficient in the RM. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that past discussion participants be notified for any discussion on Wikipedia. If someone cared that much about the ABC article(s) in question, they were free to put those articles on their watchlist. The mere fact that notifying past discussion participants is permitted in many cases (so long as it is neutral) does not impose a requirement to do so, and failing to identify any policy-based argument that it was a requirement here, it is not appropriate to use the fact that was not done as a "deficiency" in the move request by the opener. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse . Clear majority to move (hardly "50-50"!) and clearly superior arguments given the Australian one is a national broadcaster and this is not USpedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist - I was the one who relisted the ABC discussion and after having a look at the pageviews, you can see why the US one is more popular than the AU one. I also stated that the page should have been move first so that other people like Rodw and Onel5969 can also fix it. I was thinking that its fine for one to fix the links if there are less than 100, but 10,000? Maybe relisting the discussion would help because of the large pageviews between the US and AU news agencys?. One reason why Wikipedia doesn't work by (only) counting votes. (I have learnt it in my first time closing RMs.) JuniperChill (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn/relist: This looks like a coup to me. Small participation, short duration, closing editor accused of bias, !votes in favor ignoring these criticisms. Calls to shut this down with the argument "everything was done properly so this should not be reopened" completely miss the point that this was hustled through with minimal participation. I see two sides use various statistics to bludgeon their opponents, completely missing the point: that both sides have a case. To me, it is clear that AUS visitors to Wikipedia expect the AUS ABC while US visitors expect the US ABC (and it's unclear what international visitors expect). To me the solution is obvious: there is no primary topic, meaning ABC News should redirect to the disambig page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse (uninvolved). Overdue move. Supporting arguments were sound per WP:WORLDVIEW/WP:GLOBALIZE and brings the title into line with Consistency principle per WP:CRITERIA. This is EN.WP, not US.WP. If it were only a tie between US/Aus then I'd be more reticent but as the disambig page now lists many news orgs and channels/outlets using "ABC" (Philippines, Albania, Spain), it's beneficial (or at the very least does no harm) for the US article to be explicitly labelled. PRIMARYTOPIC may have applied 5 years ago but I think that is now eroded far enough to no longer apply. The fact that the American article grabbed the "ABC News" title in 2003 when the overwhelming majority of contributors and visitors were US-based (and there was no Consistency principle) does not mean it is appropriate to retain that today ("first-come-first-served"), given global internet penetration and global users/contributions. Hemmers (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Relist so we can have a proper discussion. There was one argument to move based on a misunderstanding of the source information - oddly it was even stated as a reason to move "The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts" - which, yes, does say that the US ABC News gets seven times as many viewers as the Australian one. Even though the move !vote was based on serious misunderstanding of the source, its logic was rebutted by an !vote in which it was pointed out that we apply different criteria when assessing which articles are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only that one !vote quoted appropriate policy - the other comments were not policy based, and/or were not focused on why a title was the primary topic or why the primary topic status should be changed. There was no accurate policy based argument to make the move, though there was one correct policy based reason not to make the move. When discussing and deciding which title should be primary we follow the guidance at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, which if followed would have clearly indicated that the US news station is clearly primary in terms of number of readers (the data is currently lost because the page has been moved - but if I recall it was something like 16.1K compared to the Australian 3.3K, and the number of links in and out was in the thousands compared to the hundreds for the Australian station). I think an incident like this should flag up that a requirement of EVERY move request should be that the stats are examined or displayed before a close can be made so we don't make obvious mistakes like this in future. Also, that if there are more than 1,000 links that need changing (or whichever number is agreed), that only an admin experienced in move requests should close the discussion. It appears that considerable disruption was caused by the amount of links that needed changing, and the mover encountered a number of complaints, a whale sized trout, and was briefly blocked. What's done is done, and it appears to me that everyone involved in this was working with the best interests of the project at heart, but we need to learn from this incident so something like this doesn't happen again. SilkTork (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you on this. I think all page moves that do require a significant amount of changing links should require an administrator to close the discussion and not by a non-administrator. I think an amendment to the process should be made in order to prevent situations like this from happening. Soafy234 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is flawed. There are a number of admins here endorsing the close. What's next, scrape WP:NAC? – robertsky (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Silk is right. Admins (vs trusted laymen editors) should be closing the toughest moves... not the toughest decision-wise, but logistically. This one was screaming for an admin close. I don't think BilledMammal realized the scope of how many things would have to be changed.
 * The substance of the close itself, however, is flawless, and should not be overturned. Red   Slash  05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The substance of the close amounted to "moved". No further justification was provided in the closer's statement. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even admins would find it hard to work with 10,000 links logistically. The last I checked, admins don't have a magic tool to update 10,000 articles at once. (Move+ as it was, was the next best tool followed by dabsort, other than getting a BOTREQ done). – robertsky (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the ABC News is still a redirect to ABC News (United States), it's possible to get the values by setting "Include redirects"; see here.
 * It appears that in the past year articles related to "ABC News" have been viewed almost 399,000 times. Of these 219,000, or 52%, were to the American publication. The next largest was the Australian publication with 50,000, or 12%.
 * These are still available; adding together the linkcount for both ABC News (United States) and ABC News, we get 11,000 links. The Australian publication gets 7,000, and the Spanish newspaper gets 3,000. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The numbers are more skewed than that. Looking at the '8 digit' citation, the majority (7.742M) of the 13.039M users were counted because they were using an app an average of nine minutes a week, and then all their secondary news outlets were also included in the total.  Contrariwise, they only mention the 7.3M times five (36.5M) half-hour top program from their citation but neglect to mention the many other programs produced by US ABC News, the daily 2 hour 2.777M Good Morning America program, the daily 1 hour 2.364 million for The View, the daily hour-long GMA3 morning program at 1.329M, and the nightly half-hour Nightline (0.787M).  ABC News US is well into the 8 digit range of daily viewership, and all of these shows are top-rated in their respective timeslots.  Those five times a week shows aren't even comprehensive for its television programs, ABC News also produces 20/20, a two hour show once a week.  I'm not aware of the data for the ABC News website but I suspect it's not zero.--Noren (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist I just involved with discussion regarding the article name change and many "supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic, and some other comments saying that they "support" the move because the opposer comment are US-centric worldview. IMO, this discussion should be reopen again to attract more users to discuss the name change. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "supporters" comments are just adding "per nom", "per above", etc. without any other reasonable argument why the American ABC News must not be primary topic. I also failed to see any reasonable argument from you as to why American ABC News must be the primary topic. Your argument was merely that when searching ABC News on the internet (presumably you mean Google or some other search engine) that more results come up for the American ABC News than for the Australian ABC News. That happens because presumably you are in America, because when I search for ABC News on the internet, the absolute opposite occurs for me. That is to say your subjective experience of using search engines is not universal and hence wasn't a good argument. The other oppose argument was that there had been too many discussions and therefore the status quo should remain. Again, not a good argument. Both of the oppose arguments were weak arguments. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I only see one other argument, which is from the nominator, one which I believe is flawed. So why do you wish to truncate the discussion on the topic? I can understand if you agree with the move result, but I do not understand being satisfied with the discussion (or truly lack thereof) that led to it. The RM discussion was not rushed, but it developed virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. The magnitude of this move review should indicate that. As I stated above, I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You seem to disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As discussed by @BilledMammal in a comment above, [t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've seen a plethora of RM discussions of this magnitude that received the attention and deliberation they deserved. I don't care that you've seen other discussions get rubber-stamped without deeper consideration. Other stuff exists, I am aware. I'll repeat myself again, this generated little engagement from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You proudly disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As discussed by @BilledMammal in a comment above, [t]here have been eight previous requested moves on this topic; of those, only two had more participation. 7 participants in a RM discussion is not exactly smaller than general. I've seen quite a few RM discussions with participation smaller than that. The RM discussion went for fully two weeks, which is longer than the 7 days that they generally go for. There was a banner up on the page and anyone who was interested could have participated. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I've seen a plethora of RM discussions of this magnitude that received the attention and deliberation they deserved. I don't care that you've seen other discussions get rubber-stamped without deeper consideration. Other stuff exists, I am aware. I'll repeat myself again, this generated little engagement from a limited group of editors and not community consensus on a wider scale. I believe a primary topic move requiring the amendment of over 13,000 articles deserves more than two arguments put forth. You proudly disagree. Οἶδα (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn / re list (not involved). I was not involved whatsoever in the discussion. However, based on the discussion that did happen, there was not consensus whatsoever. Whenever there are moving page discussions, there is more than "per nom" / "per above" on why a page move is needed and not just a few words. I do think that if the discussion were to be reopen, the editors that did edit the page should be pinged (even if it not required) to see if they changed their mind or not. In addition, we should also consider the previous discussions that happen years ago on this same subject which can be found here: Talk:ABC News (United States)/Archive 2.
 * Soafy234 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Overturn / resist (not involved). The only meaningful vote/comment is the one from the IP. The rest of the discussion is basically lacking valid arguments and there is no real consensus. --Cavarrone  13:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "per nom" is a complete sentence Red   Slash  05:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM. --Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (not involved): a reasonable close on both the numbers and the arguments. Lots of move discussions a closed on a similar basis - I feel this has only come here because the page has higher traffic. StAnselm (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (not involved). The two opposing arguments are not convincing — the first falls afoul of WP:CCC, and the second is incomprehensible. This move was advertised to multiple wikiprojects and nobody offered any better opposing arguments in the generous amount of time that the move request was left open, so I doubt anything good will come from relisting it. Einsof (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist/uninvolved, I was surprised to see such a limited discussion when the edits to prepare for the move hit my watchlist due to citations to the American ABC. While this may ultimately be the outcome, it needs broader discussion to call it consensus.
 * Star  Mississippi  17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse (uninvolved). While I kinda get the concerns about the number of editors who commented, this discussion was open more than long enough for an RM. And while this has been discussed in the past, it appears the last RM was in 2017, so that argument holds less weight. I’m also disappointed with tone of some of those arguing against the close here; calling it a coup or saying an editor’s opinion doesn’t count because of where they reside doesn’t help your cause. Jessintime (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Discussion had a reasonable participation and was open for two weeks, which is plenty of time. Five editors supported the move and only two editors opposed. Maybe the supporting arguments could have been better explained, but the same could be said about the opposing arguments. There was only one reasoned opposing comment, the other was just WP:STONEWALLING. There was a clear consensus to move. Vpab15 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there was one reasoned opposing comment as their argument was that search engine results are evidence for a primary topic. Please see my rebuttal of 103.111.100.82 above. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved) . I'm surprise to see the discussion regarding the page move from ABC News to ABC News (United States). While there's a enough majority vote to move the article, most supporter voters lacked the reasonable argument why the page should be move, other than "per nom" or "per above". Maybe the discussion should be relist to have more editors involve in the discussion to reach more clear consensus. 103.144.14.16 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that this IP address geolocates to Indonesia like 103.111.100.82 above. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And both to Bandar Lampung BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal, what are the odds of two different editors from Bandar Lampung being interested in a yank and an aussie broadcaster? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some editors here (and elsewhere) do not seem to realise that "per nom" etc is a perfectly acceptable argument and always has been. It merely means that the editor completely agress with the nominator and does not feel the need to reiterate the same arguments in slightly different language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that "per nom" is acceptable, and when closing I have always given such !votes equal weighting with the nomination. In this case the nomination was based on a significant error - the nom was arguing that the Australian ABC News was getting an equal audience to the American one, when the source used was saying that the American ABC News has a seven times greater audience (comparing weekly Australian figures with daily American figures). As such any "per nom" !vote in that discussion carried little weight, as the person supporting the nomination had not checked, and was making the same error. It is the role of the closer to read and understand the arguments, and to weigh how they apply to the greater consensus of our guidelines and policies. It is not the job of the closer to simply count. A bot could do that. We don't use bots to close discussions because it requires a human to read, check, understand, and give weight to the arguments. SilkTork (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The nom's argument was The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts; the sources provided showed the Australian source had 13,000,000 users per week while the American source had 7,000,000 viewers per night. When closing I interpreted this as them arguing that they had comparable audiences, and since this wasn't self-evidently contradicted by the sources, and no editor opposing the move presented an argument against it, I had no basis to consider the argument invalid.
 * Here, you introduce the argument that the American source had seven times the viewers, but this isn't self evident based on the sources, and as closer it would be inappropriate of me to introduce new arguments. I say it isn't self-evident because it appears that both sources are talking about unique users. This means that you can't multiply the American daily figure by seven to get the unique weekly users, as some will have watched on multiple nights. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source does not say that ABC News Australia has 13,000,000 users per week, the source says that ABC, the parent organisation, has that number, including other sources, such as the Kids channels. The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million. But, the main point here, is that even if the source was saying 13 million a week, that still doesn't match the 49 million a week of the US ABC News. And even if it did match the US ABC News, what really matters to us is the readership of the article. The local audience doesn't matter as much as the Wikipedia audience. These are established articles so we have clear evidence of the readership, |ABC_News_(Australia)|ABC_News_(Albanian_TV_channel)|ABC_NewsRadio|ABC_News_(Australian_TV_channel)|ABC_(newspaper)|ABCnews.com.co|News5|ABC_News_Live|ABC_News_Radio, which shows that the US ABC News has more readers than all other ABC News articles put together. When deciding which article is primary it is the Wikipedia audience/readership that we consider, not the audience/readership on other platforms. That is the established way of deciding these things, and is laid down in our guidelines. This is pretty much a slam dunk No Move because the Wikipedia audience/reader figures are so much higher than not just the Aussie article, but all the ABC News articles. We traditionally have also taken into account Google hits, though we don't rely on those unless it's a new article. We prefer using Wikipedia's actual viewing figures for existing articles. We also take into account links in and out, as that tends to indicate importance of the topic to Wikipedia itself, and the potential disruption which would be caused by moving an established article with thousands of links. The nom's argument, even if accurate, carries little weight, which is what the second oppose comment was saying. Wikipedia discussions are always closed by judging consensus formed by reasoned arguments which follow existing guidelines and policies. We don't just count the numbers. The main guideline for this RM discussion is WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which lists the four main indicators - WikiNav (not usable at the moment because of the page move - but I looked at it before the move, and it was very clear that the US article was primary); Wikipedia article traffic statistics, which I link above, and which shows that no move should take place by our criteria; usage in English reliable sources such as Google, etc, though Google can be tricky, as Google these days may provide response according to location and personal preference; and incoming wikilinks (of which the US article had thousands compared to the hundreds of the Australian one). Points to note include: "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience." which directly addresses and supports the comment made in the second oppose. The nom statement did not address the points which by agreed Wikipedia consensus we consider when deciding which article is the primary topic, while the second oppose made some very telling and on point comments. Now, I understand it can be difficult to close a discussion which has four supports and only two opposes as being in favour of the opposes. A question I sometimes have asked potential admins is how they would close such a discussion. And the best answer is the one who says they wouldn't close it or relist it, but would add their own oppose comment clearly explaining the relevant policies and guidelines which support an oppose. Whatever happens here,  BilledMammal, I hope you will take these comments on board, and moving forward consider how the arguments in a discussion are properly reasoned in line with policies and guidelines, that sometimes putting your own comment in can be more appropriate than either relisting or closing, and that when closing what is likely to be a contentious topic (reversing the trend of previous RMs is always going to be a contentious topic, renaming an article with thousands of incoming links is always going to be a contentious topic) give a clear closing statement so people can see the rationale behind your judgement.  SilkTork (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source says: ABC News has weekly users averaging 7.7 million You're right, I misread that - although 7.7 isn't the full picture, it misses the ABC news app etc.
 * That is true, but only just - 52% to 48%. Further, the US ABC News only has four times the views of the Australian one, and the community has no set definition of much more likely than any other single topic; in some circumstances it has accepted four times as sufficient to meet that requirement, but in others it has rejected it.
 * That isn't correct; the US article has 11,000, the Australian has 7,000, and several other ABC's also have thousands.
 * However, the biggest issue is that no editor made these arguments. What you're asking me to do is to introduce novel arguments, and then rule that the arguments I just made are the "right" arguments - to WP:SUPERVOTE.
 * Further, even if these arguments had been made by one of the editors opposing, I wouldn't have been able to give them additional weight for two reasons. First, it is reasonable for editors to argue that 52% doesn't sufficiently meet the definition of more likely than all the other topics combined, and editors have successfully argued that in other discussions. Second, I interpreted the supporting arguments as implicitly arguing that there is no primary topic by long-term significance, and since there is no consensus on which aspect takes precedence I wouldn't be able to give either sides !votes additional weight.
 * I will take your comments on board in the future, but aside from leaving a closing comment there is nothing I would have done differently in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 7 million daily viewers does not translate into 49 million a week. If the same 7 million people watch ABC news (US) every day, they still only have 7 million actual viewers each week. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp WP:PERNOM disagrees a little bit, but if an argument has already been made, you agree with it, and there's little to add I see little value in padding personally. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What SilkTork said. I have no problem with "per nom", but it cannot strengthen a bad case. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved): The supporting arguments are clearly stronger, and the opposing arguments are clearly US-centric, a frequent issue on Wikipedia. This wasn't a discussion to determine which ABC News is the primary topic – it was a discussion to determine if the American one is, and there is clearly no consensus that the American one should remain the primary topic. The obvious solution is to disambiguate both. MClay1 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same RM as I am? The first oppose comment reads This has gone through many requested moves and all of them were to keep the status quo. What is "US-centric" about that? The other, posted by an Indonesian IP with imperfect English, reads: While ABC News owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had considerable more audiences in absolute terms than the U.S. counterpart with similar name, we don't considered that, because without specify the country that originated when we searched on internet, "ABC News" is overhelmingly referred to the American one instead of Australian, even when we included the digital and social media platforms. How is it US-centric to (mistakenly) assert that the Australian ABC is more watched than the American one? Or to inform us that the American ABC dominates internet search results in Indonesia? Srnec (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * US-centrism is the basis behind many of the opposing comments in previous RMs referred to by the first comment (and also in comments on this discussion). The nonsensical IP comment is possibly rooted in the same thing – what metric are they using to determine that ABC News overwhelming refers to the American company instead of the Australian one on internet searches? Most major search engines are American and results are often tailored to the user. When I search in Australia, I get the opposite result. It's not a good argument. MClay1 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP's comment is no more nonsensical or irrelevant than the nominator's. That is why performing the move was wrong. The whole RM is just bad. It is not a solid basis for a major change, which is what this was given the number of pageviews, incoming links and prior RMs. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * STRONG Endorse (uninvolved). It's never been a part of Wikipedia closing policy to have to read through all the previous RM attempts. This move request was posted publicly, crossposted to the relevant projects, even relisted!!. What more would you want? See you in six months when someone requests to move it back, but until then, the ayes have it, and this move was correctly closed. (Side note: come on!!' This is more than two entire weeks! How long were they supposed to leave it up for?) ... (Second side note: let this be a lesson to all y'all: "this has been requested and rejected before", in and of itself, is not' a valid argument that will lead to you convincing anyone. Indeed, only one opposer even attempted to make a convincing point as to why to oppose the move. Come on! What could anyone do with this request but to close it as moved? Only one person even attempted to justify why it should not be moved!) Red   Slash  05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "only one person who opposed the move" is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. Cavarrone 07:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * is the only one person who posted a meaningful and policy-based comment in the discussion. This has been claimed over and over again, however I don't see that this is a correct statement. The oppose voter who cited primary topic used their subjective experience of search engine results as evidence for their claim. That is not in line with policy. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP questioned the assumption that (current) TV audience counts towards being a primary topic, referred to WP:PT1, and also directly linked a previous discussion about that point. Is this a irrefutable argument? Probably no, because the IP should had linked some evidence corraborating their point. But is it a policy-based argument? Certainly yes, up to the point that the policy is actually linked. But if you want make the point the whole discussion at that stage was extremely poor, I second that, and that's the reason the closure was premature. Cavarrone 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An RM being open for two weeks and having 7 editors involved does not speak to a premature close. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If almost all the comments are flimsy to the extreme, anecdotical and non-policy based, it actually is (WP:NOTAVOTE). At best at that stage there was a NC because of the general inconsistency of the comments, but I am not advocating that, as the most reasonable option was to relist the discussion. Cavarrone 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per above comment by Necrothesp above, "per nom" is a perfectly valid argument and always has been. Editors shouldn't be forced to rewrite what someone else argued, when they entirely agree with it. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If almost all the comments are flimsy to the extreme, anecdotical and non-policy based, it actually is (WP:NOTAVOTE). At best at that stage there was a NC because of the general inconsistency of the comments, but I am not advocating that, as the most reasonable option was to relist the discussion. Cavarrone 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per above comment by Necrothesp above, "per nom" is a perfectly valid argument and always has been. Editors shouldn't be forced to rewrite what someone else argued, when they entirely agree with it. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Relist (uninvolved) because the sheer length of this discussion relative to the discussion it is reviewing means the "closure" has failed to actually close anything. I think on principle I would consider the closure reasonable, but closures, especially ones that result in over 10,000 edits being made to implement them, need to be broadly accepted by the community and if people are writing 50K of text about whether the closure is valid then it hasn't been. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion did not convince the broader community that the action is right (WP:CONLEVEL). It convinced (also debatable given that consensus is not determined by a simple counted majority) a limited group of editors in which the quality of arguments have now been called into question and resulted in this massive pushback. In determining consensus, we must consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines (WP:CONSENSUS). In a discussion with virtually no back-and-forth or scrutiny and with arguments from both sides having already been demonstrated above to be flawed or even innaccurate, I'm not sure how you can conclude that consensus was reached. The discussion is patently waiting to take place. But instead we waste our time listening to desperate attempts to frame the discussion as being fully developed with ample quality arguments that have been broadly accepted by the community. The magnitude of this move review is becoming preposterous. It is fine to be in agreement with the move result, but let us not suppress community discussion and consensus building. There will never be a convincing argument to that end. Οἶδα (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question - per Move review - is whether the close was "within closer's discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion". The fact that there is pushback from people who feel like they missed out in having their say is irrelevant. You are making WP:CONLEVEL mean something it was never meant to mean: there was nothing in the discussion or the close that "overrode community consensus on a wider scale". StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And BilledMammal did not reasonably interpret consensus in the discussion, as outlined repeatedly above by Srnec and SilkTork. Refer to these posts and perhaps respond to them (you have not). Οἶδα (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the issue. But you won't receive any interesting responses, just editors obfuscating the fact that they wish to stifle discussion. Unfortunately, several editors here are unwavering on the topic. They are adamant to suppress community consensus on a wider scale. Because apparently what constitutes consensus to them is a discussion from a limited group of editors that resulted in virtually no substantive discussion (only two arguments were put forth that included mention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And when you demonstrate that it has not been broadly accepted by the community nor is it sufficient to cause the revision of over 10,000 articles they will just tell you that plenty of other paltry discussions have been accepted as consensus in the past so we needn't go into the matter further. Οἶδα (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Endorse. Look, if the community wants to establish a policy requiring that RM requests be held open for a longer time, or held open for a longer time with respect to some particular class of articles (based on number of incoming links, page views, past discussions, or whatever else), that's fine, implement that policy. As it stands, however, this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion. BD2412  T 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist per WP:CONLOCAL and Pppery. My inclination is that this was the "right" outcome but given the scale of the change and the amount of discussion in the initial move request compared to here suggests there's more the community wants to consider in this matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's not the way move reviews are supposed to work, is it? StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think it's the purpose of move review to assess if the correct consensus was determined as determined by appropriate weighting of policies, of which Consensus and its subsection about Local Consensus being one that is relevant here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I find the closer’s arguments reasonable and I do not believe there is one clear primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). The closer accurately evaluated the consensus. The mere fact prior discussions did not come to the same conclusion does not mean that consensus here was not different. The discussion was listed appropriately at all applicable areas, and others had their chance over 2+ weeks to comment in favor of or against the move proposal(s). I believe BD2412 puts it very well above. If the community wants to discuss different requirements for how long move requests must be open, or for a required notification of all past editors if a new move request is opened on a page they had previously commented on a move request, then that's fine. But this closure was made in line with current policies and procedure, and people feeling bad/regretting that they didn't go to comment before it was closed does not change that fact. This MR here is not the place to re-hash the arguments in favor of or opposed, and even the "new" information that was presented does not actually support overturning (weekly viewers cannot be extrapolated from daily viewers, for example). Thus the close should stand, and normal procedures for beginning a new move review followed if editors feel it is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

PAGE</b>]]) 15:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) PAGE</b>]]) 16:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist per above. I had mistakenly thought that this was settled, but it seems to not be the case. For a majorly disruptive page move like this (with so many incoming links), perhaps there should be a mandatory extended discussion period and a central watchlist rather than solely relying on project notices.  Sounder Bruce  01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion period was already extended. As for central watchlist, there is the WP:RMC for now. Anything beyond is a separate discussion on refining the WP:RM process. – robertsky (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize, don't you, that all the incoming links have been fixed now? StAnselm (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (no consensus). The discussion was inadequate. The nomination was confusing with obliquely presented facts, to a fault. The sole pertinent question of “is there a PrimaryTopic” was not sufficiently examined. As the nomination is at fault, do not relist, but allow a fresh nomination after a short pause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse the close was clearly correct; the arguments for the move were stronger and had 5-2 support. None of the "overturn" arguments here have brought compelling and factually-accurate arguments; the larger participation here is thus not cause to relist.  In particular: (a) because the move is moving a DAB page to the previous title, the temporary "broken links" are not an inconvenience; (b) the two-week listing period was sufficient, and longer than most moves; (c) while the "8-digit viewership" argument in the nomination is confusing, it is beyond dispute that the two stations have viewing figures that are comparable in scale; (d) neither the 2011 nor 2017 move requests have compelling arguments against this move; in general the appeals to a prior consensus do not justify a relist. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not he point of move review to relitigate the move, but to determine if the close was correct. So it isn't anyone's job to bring compelling and factually-accurate arguments for or against the move here. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, enough people have complained about the outcome that a new discussion appears inevitable, regardless of where consensus is. I see no reason to prevent that discussion. Walsh90210 (talk)
 * Overturn/relist (uninvolved). The closure was not wrong at the time (as Extraordinary Writ argues), but that's not the only valid basis for a move review. Equally valid is significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion. It's clear from the length and substance of the commentary here, that significant information was not discussed in the RM. For example, editors have begun to debate assessments of page views and incoming links. No matter whether you agree any of that information should ultimately change the outcome, a reopened RM the place for it to be discussed. The closer is right that the closure could not have considered arguments that had not yet been made by any editor, but it is wrong not to reopen the discussion now that they are being made. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think page views or incoming links are "significant additional information" as both were readily available during the move request. Jessintime (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). The closure correctly analyzed the consensus in the discussion; on my read of it, I don't see any strong arguments for the American network retaining its primary topic status. The procedural objections to the move are poorly founded as well. Two weeks is an above-average duration for an RM to be open, and gestures to past discussion results are not especially compelling – particularly since the last RM before this one was seven years ago. Consensus can change, especially over more than half a decade. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). Per the above, I don't see any strong arguments in the original thread for the US channel to retain the primary topic. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) (Italic section added at SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC))
 * This is move review. It isn't anyone's job to provide such arguments here. If you want to see some, you should probably ask for a relist. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m well aware of what this page is and its purpose, and don’t need the lessons, thanks. I’ve clarified for the hard of understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. has said it very well: this was a policy-compliant close, and a fair reading of consensus in the discussion. I said very little in my own !vote, because it seemed sufficiently clear where the stronger argument was; I cannot fault the closer for judging likewise.   Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved) this was a move discussion which needed to be closed, was relisted twice, and the arguments against weren't necessarily very strong. I don't see any problem with this at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also note given that this seems to have triggered a lot of discussion, starting a new move request immediately may not be a bad idea with the old request as the status quo. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed!  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the closer strongly consider this idea as I do think it's consensus of what I've seen here - what happened is endorsed but it is allowed for a new discussion to be immediately be opened. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved with the move discussion, although I did express some opinions on the post-close link retargeting). Two reasons I support reilsting. First, when a large number of editors express to the closer that they would've voted had they seen the discussion, reopening is the right thing to do per WP:NOTBUREAU. Second, I'm just not seeing any strong arguments for the move. The nomination is based on data that is both wrong (ABC News Australia doesn't get 8-digit viewership per week) and presented in a misleading manner (comparing weeks to days), there is one "per nom" which is agreeing that a broadcaster with 7.7 million weekly views is on equal footing to one that gets 49 million weekly views, there is one that is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, one that is anecdotal, and one that is "as above" (which would be valid if any of the above actually had a strong policy-based argument). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * The move was listed correctly and ran for over two weeks (double the advised norm) and included a relist too. The voting was clean and clear and the closer followed practice and policy in doing the close (despite your mischaracterisation of the !votes). How many bites of the cherry do you want to turn this into US.WP, rather than EN.WP? - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat That's quite a bit of WP:ABF there. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Not really. Your mischaracterisation of the arguments of other editors, however, isn't exactly a shining beacon good faith, so I wouldn't press the point too far. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 7 million daily viewers does not necessarily equate to 49 million weekly viewers. If the same 7 million people watch ABC (US) every night of the week without fail, they only have 7 million weekly viewers. In other words, you cannot compare apples to oranges just by painting the apples orange. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist or overturn - This move discussion is highly contentius that should be closed by an admin. I believed given the 50/50 chance this should be relisted for the final time. I am uninvolved. Toadette Edit! 19:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved). This discussion was open for more than two weeks and projects notified. Closing as move was completely reasonable given the arguments. People are pointing at the nationality of editors and saying it should be relisted on that basis. Seriously? Tom B (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved) - This is a significant move and we can ensure a lot more people are happy with the outcome by giving it some more time and gather more input. -- Netoholic @ 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (uninvolved). Yes, the close was fine in a vacuum.  But the result is surprising and contested.  Per WP:NOTBURO, this is not "you snooze you lose", there was a late surge of supports and it's possible people ignored the request as unlikely to succeed.  Just relist it, which should have happened for a close RM anyway as a courtesy rather than going to MR.  SnowFire (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse (uninvolved): Only because relisting will result in some obvious participation bias. People who oppose the move are much more likely to look at the discussion than people who support the move (because it has already been done). The additional attention at this MRV doesn't help. The only way I would support a relist is if it's done at a global scale so it is not obviously skewed one way.  C F A   💬  15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)