SilverLocust (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
King of Hearts (talk | contribs) →Edward IV: close: Result endorsed |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS COMMENT – copy and fill in the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<REQUEST PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|closer=<CLOSING EDITOR'S USER NAME>|closer_section=<SECTION OF CLOSER'S TALK PAGE DISCUSSION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS COMMENT – copy and fill in the format: {{subst:move review list|page=<PAGE NAME>|rm_page=<REQUEST PAGE NAME>|rm_section=<SECTION>|closer=<CLOSING EDITOR'S USER NAME>|closer_section=<SECTION OF CLOSER'S TALK PAGE DISCUSSION>|reason=<REASON>}}~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ --> |
||
====[[ |
====[[Edward IV]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #E2FFE2; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[Edward IV]]''' – '''Result endorsed''' despite [[WP:BADNAC]]. The close should have been performed by an admin and included more explanation of the rationale, but otherwise there is consensus that the decision is correct. The [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?|RfC]] that established the new guideline was well-attended, and comparisons of the relative size of participation of the RfC and individual RMs are not helpful unless the RfC consensus is so weak that it cannot be said to represent the broader opinion of the community. [[WP:IAR]] can only be invoked if the invoker explains what makes this case special, or else IAR could be used to ignore the newly passed guideline entirely, which is clearly against the spirit of IAR. [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 05:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{move review links|Edward IV|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Edward V}}|rm_section=Requested_move_29_February_2024}} |
:{{move review links|Edward IV|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Edward V}}|rm_section=Requested_move_29_February_2024}} |
||
:{{move review links|Edward V|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Edward V}}|rm_section=Requested move 29 February 2024}} ([[User talk:Compassionate727#Your move closure|Discussion with closer]]) |
:{{move review links|Edward V|rm_page={{TALKPAGENAME:Edward V}}|rm_section=Requested move 29 February 2024}} ([[User talk:Compassionate727#Your move closure|Discussion with closer]]) |
||
Line 67: | Line 75: | ||
:::::::: Oh, plenty. At any rate, this is not the place to have this discussion. When the RM reopens, you can go argue it there. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::: Oh, plenty. At any rate, this is not the place to have this discussion. When the RM reopens, you can go argue it there. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 03:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::The RM is for presenting arguments supporting or opposing the move. This MR is about evaluating closer’s finding that support arguments were better based in policy. This MR, not a reopened RM, is therefore the appropriate forum for showing how policy cited by opposers didn’t actually support their position. Continuing to misinterpret RECOGNIZABILITY here in the MR is not helpful, except to reinforce closer’s point about their job: “to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were”. — [[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::::The RM is for presenting arguments supporting or opposing the move. This MR is about evaluating closer’s finding that support arguments were better based in policy. This MR, not a reopened RM, is therefore the appropriate forum for showing how policy cited by opposers didn’t actually support their position. Continuing to misinterpret RECOGNIZABILITY here in the MR is not helpful, except to reinforce closer’s point about their job: “to apply policy as it is, rather than as some editors wish it were”. — [[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus]]==== |
====[[:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus]]==== |
Revision as of 05:49, 9 May 2024
2024 April
Edward IV (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion was closed by a non-admin in favour of the move, even though consensus was clearly not in favour. The closure appeared to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial, which this one clearly was. The response to my approach was that "The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear". If the latter were truly the case, there would not have been such a long dispute over its application. Deb (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus
- Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)
Closer made a "no-consensus close" (with the exception of WP:NOYEAR), but has also insisted the title remain at the location it was boldly moved to, rather than to title used in the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
, as required by WP:TITLECHANGES. The close itself appears reasonable, but the decision on what title should be utilized given a no-consensus close is contrary to policy, and I am opening this move request to request overturning that aspect and moving the article to "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus".
Note that there have been two other discussions on this, at RMTR and the article talk page; the discussion at RMTR is the cause of this move review being opened, as while three uninvolved admins have agreed that the article is at the wrong title, none have been willing to unilaterally move it over full move protection and the objections of the closing admin - they have instead recommended that a move review be opened. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close. The closer correctly interpreted the discussion as concerning a request to move away from the current title. They correctly observed that a proposal to return to the initial title was among the actively discussed options, however it did not garner necessary support – the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename, even if it was undiscussed. — kashmīrī TALK 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you say "the community has undoubtedly supported the initial rename"? Maybe I missed some context, but that doesn't seem supported by the no-consensus close, at least. The closer clarified that "There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except WP:NOYEAR." XDanielx (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Kashmiri was involved in the RM (opposed the proposed revert and replied supporting removing the year). Involvement should be disclosed per #Commenting in a move review. SilverLocust 💬 04:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) for the procedural reasons BilledMammal mentioned. A no-consensus close should have restored the default mentioned in WP:TITLECHANGES, rather than keeping the result of an improper move (a clearly-controversial move that was done without a RM). XDanielx (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved). The title was 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus prior to a BOLD move on 2 April. The closer found consensus to remove the year but explicitly said "there was not" consensus to do anything else. Under WP:NOCON/WP:TITLECHANGES, the page clearly needs to go the "most recent stable title" (or, if you prefer, "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub") minus the year—Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. No objections to a new RM after this review is closed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ Before the 2 April move, the article had existed for a whole of 19 hours, so this is a weak argument. — kashmīrī TALK 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and overturn (uninvolved) this is a bit of an odd RM as it seems there was opposition to revert the page move, and I endorse the no consensus to revert the move to the original title, as there was consensus not to move it back. As a result WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply, even though it's a strange one. However I don't see clear support for invoking WP:NOYEAR and would overturn the move to the originally suggested title. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:TITLECHANGES is not applicable here and should be disregarded – it only refers to situations when
an article title has been stable for a long time
(bolding mine). In this instance, however, "consulate" was never stable for more than a day: the article was first renamed from "consulate" to "embassy" within 15 hours of its creation[1] and remained so for two weeks, with a few later changes, back-an-forth, but always "embassy" was the more stable title. Yet, there was nothing resembling "long time" in this very new article.
- Anyway, if policies are contradictory, we have to refer to local consensus, and there was no consensus to support the proposal of going back the much less stable term "consulate". — kashmīrī TALK 23:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted from it clearly does apply;
If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made
- Further, the new title wasn’t stable because it was disputed an hour later on the talk page by opening an RM - stable means undisputed, not unreverted, as for it to mean otherwise would encourage edit warring. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- 1 April: Article created
- 2 April: Article moved to "embassy..." [2]
- 14 April: Article moved to "consulate" [3]
- Back-and-forth moves follow.
- The stable name is obvious, no need to pretend. — kashmīrī TALK 02:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- You missed a few relevant events:
- BilledMammal (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's not responsive to BilledMammal's point, which wasn't about how long the title was live, but the fact that it was immediately contested. Clearly there is no stable title, since the page has only existed for a few weeks and the title has been debated essentially the entire time. Hence the aforementioned "first major contribution" default. XDanielx (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- As noted above, this supposed procedural "clarification" by Kashmiri here is factually wrong. WP:TITLECHANGES does apply here, and according to the "first non-stub version" stipulation therein, the stable default title in the event of no other consensus is 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. The present title of the article is not the default unless a consensus explicitly finds so. — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted from it clearly does apply;
- Move the building destroyed was the Counsulate as everyone can check by their own [7][8]. The current title is wrong and misleading, moreover failing to comply with WP:PRECISE. Nicola Romani (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) on the no consensus but yet not moving back to the original title conclusion. I had said my part in the RM/TR discussion. I don't mind it being moved to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus if the consensus was found to have the year removed from the title. – robertsky (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved). Dylanvt boldly moved the page at 14:26, 2 April. Classicwiki disagreed with the move and was entitled to revert it per Wikipedia:Requested moves, after which Dylanvt could have opened a RM to reinstate the move. However, Classicwiki instead opened a RM to revert the move. Now we have no consensus to revert the move, no consensus to keep the present title, and (while there is consensus to remove the year) no consensus to just remove the year and keep the rest of the present title. Given the title is controversial, I think the cleanest sensible path forward is to wind the clock back to before 14:26, 2 April, restoring the original title, after which Dylanvt or anyone can start a new RM. As it happens, WP:TITLECHANGES says "default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made" – that was the original title. (I don't understand at all the arguments that WP:TITLECHANGES does not apply.) I don't object to dropping the year from the original title – that would be a less clean rollback, but is probably more sensible. Nurg (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) per Extraordinary Writ. I also dispute the removal of the year given how little attention it received. Pilaz (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) procedurally per WP:TITLECHANGES. But also since the current title clearly does not match the article lead. Marokwitz (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close (involved) The closer correctly applied WP:NOTAVOTE and understood the consensus for WP:NOYEAR. Based on the edit history embassy seems to be the more stable article name. Both embassy and bombing are much more WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This was a no-consensus close, though, not a close based on policies like WP:PRECISE. You mention some non-procedural reasons for supporting the outcome, but they seem out of place in a move review, which is "not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process" (WP:MR). XDanielx (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn finding of "no consensus", Endorse move (involved): I see very little well-reasoned support for moving it back to the original title, or original minus the year, and plenty for the current title. It seems to me that the consensus was to keep the title except for removing the superfluous date per NOYEAR, hence why I Endorse the move for correctly applying that policy. --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Question. < uninvolved > I'm perplexed how any editor here could possibly make an informed decision without first asking this question! What is the closer's reason for not moving to either 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus per editor Amakuru above, or to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus per the closer's perceived consensus to remove the year?This was not asked nor covered on the closer's talk page. As much as I would like to endorse the closure of an editor who has been on WP for coming up on twenty years next year, who became a sysop in 2006 and who is now a trusted and seasoned admin, I just cannot make an informed decision without first hearing why such an esteemed editor did not follow the Wikipedia policy. There must have been a good reason, a very good reason, to ignore this long-term community consensus.If no reason is forthcoming, I don't see how this closure could possibly be endorsed. Unless there is a really good WP:IAR behind this closure, it should be overturned, and the correct title, which in my opinion would be Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, should become the article's title.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- Endorse per this discussion, which I had missed. The closer distinctly found "strong consensus" to not move the page back to the previous title and also agreement to remove the year. So I endorse this closure; the current title should remain so. I would ask only that the closer adjust the RM's closing statement to include this information for posterity. The closing admin has no problem with a fresh and immediate RM to resolve any further issues, so neither do I. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that just means there was strong consensus not to go back to the title with the year. The closer specifically said here that "there was not" consensus to do anything other than change the year. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- And I'm pretty sure that the closer was clear when he wrote "
...and consensus was strong that that name ('2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus') was not what the community wanted.
" This is the part that belongs in the closing statement to dispel any confusion. It's not just the date that was unwanted, but the entire old title. The closer went on, "I made the ruling to put the page at 'Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus', regardless of previous naming of the page.
" That to me means that the closer made a reasonable administrative decision, which should be endorsed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- And I'm pretty sure that the closer was clear when he wrote "
- I'm pretty sure that just means there was strong consensus not to go back to the title with the year. The closer specifically said here that "there was not" consensus to do anything other than change the year. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per this discussion, which I had missed. The closer distinctly found "strong consensus" to not move the page back to the previous title and also agreement to remove the year. So I endorse this closure; the current title should remain so. I would ask only that the closer adjust the RM's closing statement to include this information for posterity. The closing admin has no problem with a fresh and immediate RM to resolve any further issues, so neither do I. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved) per WP:TITLECHANGES as explained by others here and at the preceding technical request. SilverLocust 💬 03:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Today (Australian TV program) (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This move request should be re-opened as closer wasn't able to take into account that the 1982 TV program is the obvious primary topic for "Today (Australian TV program)", which has aired for 44 years in comparison to the 1960 TV program's one year. I support the second move occurring, but the first move doesn't need to occur and this article should be reverted back to its original location at "Today (Australian TV program)", it is the most likely topic being referred to when readers search for this program. Happily888 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Opposition to Chavismo (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies. Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --WMrapids (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
|