Hosta

Cute (Japanese band) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)}}

Appeal of a WP:NAC who mistakenly applied WP:MOS-TM based on one editor's argument and upholding a 2 year old consensus from very little input and then another NAC (done by an IP in that instance); MOS-TM should be applied in this case, but not in the way that the non-admin close went, as evidence was provided that "Cute" fails the primary criterion that "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)" such that it is not used by reliable sources to refer to the subject of the page. —Ryulong (琉竜) 00:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by closer) When reading through the points, I felt that consensus was in this, and other cases, for keeping the title how it is. Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:MOS-TM says that a name should follow "the standard rules of punctuation", which "°C-ute" and "C-ute" don't. I've already shown that "キュート" has also been used in Japanese. The Hepburn romanization of "キュート" is "Cute". (Here's one more example of "キュート" being used: [1]. The first time the article mentions the group, it says 「℃－ｕｔｅ（キュート）」 (like this, in brackets). Then it starts referring to it as simply "キュート".) --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Recalling that Move Review "is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion," so we say, the closure adequately gauged consensus (although to be fair, oppose votes were only a slight majority) and adhered to MOS guidelines. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that Mdann52 shouldn't have closed the discussion himself, should have left it for an admin to decide. Also, there were some very strong opinions in favor of the move, and a closing person should have been more considerate of them, not just said that WP:MOS-TM says so. But I personally think that Mdann52's closing statement itself is correct. --Moscowconnection (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, Mdann52 shouldn't have closed the discussion. --Moscowconnection (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. The more relevant page is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. The first, third, and fourth criteria there were certainly met. Whether "consensus or lack of consensus [was] clear" is up for debate (specifically, here). And discussion was open a bit longer than a week. It's not a situation where I would've performed an NAC (assuming I hadn't participated in discussion), but that doesn't mean it was wrong. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously there aren't enough admins to close these discussions. We need non-admin closures to get this stuff done in a sensible timeframe. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Well within the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenedos (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

A recent move request, calling for this entry about a Turkish Aegean island to be moved from its historic Greek name to its current English-language Turkish name, was closed and rejected by User:Drmies, who: 1) appears not to have read the debate properly before closing; 2) had already expressed an opinion in favour of retaining the page at its current name; and 3) acted in contravention of WP:TITLE and WP:NCGN. N-HH talk/edits 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close and retention at current title and ideally move asap per request above. To expand on the reasoning -

• The close was against title policy, given that the modern, official Turkish name for the island—Bozcaada—is used in nearly every international English-language map/atlas, media source, reference work and reputable travel book in 2012. The close gave undue weight to the fact that a raw Google Book hit count shows more hits for the historical/Greek name Tenedos, given references to its classical past (as well as numerous ships and horses named after the island). WP:TITLE and WP:NCGN explicitly warns about the risks of such raw counts.
• The closing admin also explicitly stated that the island has no "official name and status", which is not only incorrect but was clearly explained in the discussion, including in the proposer's opening statement. Given that they also subsequently claimed that it was not up to them to look at any maps, despite such maps being clearly mentioned and cited, again in the proposer's opening statement, it is questionable to what extent they had actually reviewed the discussion.
• Subsequent attempts to make points such as the above, perfectly reasonably, on their talk page were met with the immediate responses that my comments were not "smart" and that his "three-year old can come up with better".
• It was also revealed that they had previously offered an implicit opinion in favour of retaining the current name when they were asked to contribute to the move debate, although they did so on their own talk page rather than in the actual debate, raising at least the appearance of a conflict of interest as described in WP:RMCI. N-HH talk/edits 18:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to respond to the ad hominems, except maybe to note that N-HH's arguments on my talk page seemed to consist of "we have the better evidence and our opponents are nationalists", and Chrisrus didn't have more to offer than "check the map". Reverting an admin and impugning his impartiality on that limited basis, I consider that not very smart. Maybe I'm wrong about my three-year old, though; perhaps that's more rhetorical father's love. But I should respond to the last point, about this "implicit opinion": I thank N-HH for bringing that up, because I had completely forgotten. I was wondering how this was so familiar--those who know me know that I'm forgetful. Looking at that Q and A again, though, I think you can see what is going on--in the very first section of the talk page the claim is made that "Tenedos" is the only term used in the NYT archives, and that is obviously not correct, as my counterexamples show. So I think that's hardly a predisposition, and now I remember why I responded on that one specific point and no others: I didn't look any further than the first section, because what struck me (the only thing that struck me) was a comment from 2012 stuck into a discussion from 2006, obviously erroneously since it precedes the older comments. Anyways, it was established very quickly that that one claim was incorrect, and that's the extent of my response to E4024's comment (I think they saw my name elsewhere--I have a vague recollection of having worked on an island somewhere in that area), and the extent of my "previous involvement". I have no problem declaring myself unpredisposed, if only because I had totally forgotten that brief interaction. So thanks to N-HH for bringing that back to mind; I should read my own talk page more often. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• One other thing: Chrisrus and Darklord are, I'm sure, aware of this discussion. Are some of the other participants? And let me note that the very request here already proposes that the move should be justified: "from its historic Greek name to its current English-language Turkish name". That the Turkish name is the current English language name was the very matter to be decided. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could specify what qualifies as an "ad hominem" in any of what I have said above, that might be helpful. By contrast of course, despite the fact that I had nothing to do with reverting your close, you chose to attack and insult me as if I had. Also, for the record, I did not say "our opponents are nationalists", I said that one had to look beyond the nationalism of both sides. It might be better if you stopped repeating that line, not least because it casts doubt on how you interpret what you read. As for the evidence on what terms are used in contemporary, reliable and relevant sources to refer to the modern, existing island in 2012, the evidence in favour of Bozcaada rather obviously is better. Sometimes there comes a point when one has to accept that.

I'm not sure it would be helpful to have the same old faces back repeating the same old arguments. Isn't the idea to get fourth-party eyes on the closure decision? N-HH talk/edits 19:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically claiming I'm intellectually dishonest since, you say, I haven't read all the evidence. That I go into an RfC with a predisposed mind, I take that personally as well. YMMV, but I take my job seriously. Fourth-party eyes: yes, but the case here is presented by someone with a dog in this fight, and I do not see that you have laid it out very objectively.

I have laid out more of my rationale on Chrisrus's talk page here; it seems that one way or another my comments on "official name" didn't come across properly. I don't wish to cut and paste, nor do I wish do take up too much space here: this is, as N-HH correctly says, not a place to rehash the move discussion. Other editors and/or admins will determine whether my evaluation was correct: this particular Move discussion provided no clear consensus to overthrow a status quo. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one can present a move review without suggesting the original closer might have done something wrong. I never used the word dishonest, but stand by an assertion that the evidence presented was not limited in the way you claimed and continue to claim it was. Even after the close, with the comment you have linked to, you subsequently accepted there was discussion about the "official name" - but only in relation to "Tenedos", as coined in a 1923 treaty prior to the return of the island to Turkey. Which is still not a fair representation of the discussion, where the fact that "Bozcaada" is the modern Turkish official name was mentioned by the proposer in their opening comments and in several subsequent comments, cited to both official English-language Turkish publications and to a Geographic Names Database, and that conclusion was even accepted by the majority of the opposers. N-HH talk/edits 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't note how the question of what an "offical" name means is not a deciding factor, as the participants pointed out. I don't dispute that there's officialness aplenty in varying degrees (a Geographic Names database is not evidence of that), but it's on both sides, and I gave more detail on that in the comments on Chrisrus's page, linked above. BTW, the comment below is plenty of proof that having one side of the debate know about this (from Chrisrus's page, for example) but not the other is not a good idea. Basically, this seems to be headed for a headcount; I await the same commentary by Chrisrus and E4024, and maybe others. If you desired this to be fair, you'd let others know. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N-HH didn't go out of his way to notify me. I was simply happened to be checking on the article for the island where I saw the review note on top. Please check the pages properly before incorrectly accusing others. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of poor reading. I didn't accuse anyone. I didn't say N-HH went out of his way, not even that N-HH notified anyone. Why is it that everything here gets turned into an accusation? As tiresome as this is, and however much this will be twisted: Both sides presented arguments. Some of them were stronger than others. No one side convinced the other side to any significant degree, maps and Google Books and spreadsheets notwithstanding--that's the very definition of impasse, and plenty of reason to decide there is no consensus to overturn the status quo. But now I'm truly done. I hope uninvolved editors will get involved here. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not comment on other people's skills. It's not constructive. You did say "If you desired this to be fair, you'd let others know" which is an accusation that he tried to make it unfair as far as the English language goes. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should give me lessons in English. You're wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Close - The reasons:

• The closing admin have given a decision before the closing of the move request: [2].
• The reasoning given for the closure gives undue weight to opposing view or makes simply incorrect claims:

• The closing admin claims that if we take out IPs and banned voters we get a draw. If my count is right we have 15 Support (2 IPs and one banned editor (Cinque stelle) leaving a count of 12) and 12 Oppose (1 IP leaving a count of 11). Only way to get a draw is if he ignored the IP that voted Oppose.
• The closing admin points out ([3]) that the official name was brought up in few places and quotes the argument by Alexikoua. A lot of people indeed brought up the official name but it was only Alexikou that claimed the official name was not Bozcaada. All other people who brought up the official name did so to point out that it was Bozcaada (the ones that voted Support) and that the official names are not meant to be used in Wiki (the ones who voted Oppose).
• The reasoning given for the closure includes incorrect information that there is no official name of the island. Council of Europe, NATO, UN or other official bodies were shown to be using the Bozcaada name which even included official Greek documents as well.

• The second response the closing admin gave after the revert by Chrisrus was simply to say that comments of Chrisrus and N-HH was "not very smart": [4]
• The closing admin made a number of false allegations towards involved editors distorting their arguments. He claimed on more than one occasion that people were accused of having nationalistic motive (ie. [5] and [6]) while he was only told implicitly that it was the right course to leave the nationalistic motives of both sides.
• The closing admin made very uncivil and disruptive comments that are borderline insults: The "not very smart" comment ([7]) and the "My three-year old can come up with better than that" comment ([8]).

All these reasons given, I'd like to point out that Chrisrus who initially reverted the close initially expressed his opinion as in opposition of the move request but later changed it to Support due to provided evidence. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the move review project page more carefully I see that this place can be abused to simply repeat what's said under the move request, so, I'll try my best not to. Extensive amount of evidence is shown under the move request that points out Bozcaada as the preferred English name for the modern island in guidebooks, news agencies, encyclopedias, etc... The only major substance "Oppose" voters provided was Google Books results. These results were problematic in many ways as they repeated entries more than once and a large number of them contained books written in the context of island's ancient history. A quick Google Books search would show that an other ancient name of the island Phoenice returns a 100,000 more results. These problems with the decision added to the ones I mentioned earlier shows that Drmies's decision to close the move request as very problematic. Undue weight has been given by Drmies to problematic Google Books results while everything else is pretty much ignored and incorrect claims about "Support" arguments are provided by him (which indicates a failed or lack of analysis of evidence provided on the move request). I advise anyone reading this move review to take a look at WP:GNUM and WP:NCGN before giving their opinion. The most important bit however:

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.

TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The civility issues associated with the RM discussion and subsequent edit warring have no bearing on title decisions and this Move Review. All participants should refrain from any personal back and forth in this discussion. If you want to defend your honor, do it somewhere else, not here. Please focus on the facts of the close and RM discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think we can dismiss Drmies's incivility that quickly as it tells somewhat about his motive way of conduct in closing the move request the way he did. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from commenting about the motives of other editors. Comment on their contributions not on their personal motives. You are currently appealing an Arbcom restriction. This kind of attitude is not going to look good on you to say the least. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbcom restriction? Are you sure that you're in the right place? We're requesting review of a move request closure. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you think you can attack other editors on a move review while saying what a nice guy you are to the Arbs? Are you trying to be funny? LOL. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this baseless attack from you is part of this process.

However, I used the word "motive" before but I don't think it was appropriate for what I meant. "Way of conduct" seems to be the right one. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? I tried to help you so that you look good to the Arbs and you call my helpful advice a "baseless attack". FWIW I did not expect any better from you but I am always an optimist. The mere fact that you corrected your comment after my intervention shows that at least my effort was not in vain and your attack on another editor has been softened. Cause for a minor celebration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a thread on my or your talk page if you're gonna further discuss your attacks on me. Also, don't forget to WP:AGF. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not learning. If you think I attacked you go to WP:WIKIQUETTE or WP:ANI and report me. In the meantime please stop your clueless attacks on me. I tried to help you and you are attacking me. This is clueless behaviour. Please stop it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse as a reasonable close. WP:COMMONNAME says:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; 
it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-
language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. 
If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should 
be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before 
the change. 

So even if we agree that the new name is the official one, that needs to overcome the 10:1 ratio in English sources on preferring the old name. The COMMONNAME provides no real guidance on how much more weight to give, but overcoming a 10:1 ration seems a high bar. Further, the "old" name still sees significant use in newer sources (mainly because it goes by the old name in the oft-discussed Aenead). I really think closing in favor of the move would have been a violation of our policies. Now, another question is if policy actually makes sense. This is a weird case (old name being used due to the Aenead) and I'm not overly comfortable with the outcome. I'd claim we should give more weight to the official name. But that's not what policy says and closing against policy in a case like this (close discussion, nationalistic issues) would have been quickly overturned in my estimation. Disclaimer: the closer made me aware of this discussion, see my talk page. Hobit (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we're getting bogged down in the common/official name point here. I never said that we should simply follow the official name. I know policy does not back that and the second part of my initial statement above makes this clear. The point is two-fold. First, in closing, Drmies claimed there is no official name. That was not only plain wrong, but it was clearly stated, referenced and accepted in the discussion that there was. Hence, he misread or did not read the discussion; hence one basis for this move review request. Secondly, on the underlying question, official names are not definitive but they do have some weight - and, as it happens, the official Turkish name, as often in place naming, is the common name in nearly every other contemporary English-language sources (indeed the common vs official disaprity usually related to shortened variants, not to altogether different words). Again, when you talk about a "10:1 ratio" proving the common name, you're falling for the Google Books fallacy and ignoring WP:NCGN's requirement to "use the modern name". The vast majority of those references are to the island in antiquity or to other things altogether. Constantinople still beats Istanbul in raw Google Books hits; Rhodesia runs Zimbabwe close; Calcutta and Bombay whack Kolkata and Mumbai out of the court. Nearly every modern third-party English-language atlas, reference source or document referring to the island today uses Bozcaada - and many of these were cited in the move debate, with virtually no counter-examples (and, again, in closing, this evidence was apparently ignored, with Drmies suggesting they had not even been presented when he said it wasn't up to him to go and look at any maps). This article should be at the title Bozcaada, and have the following opening sentence: "Bozcaada, known historically and to Greeks as Tenedos, is a Turkish island ...", with "Tenedos" a redirect That's how we'd do this for any similar situation. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment After some discussion on my talk page, I've got to say I'd likely !vote to move at this point. That said, given that both sides have reasonable policy on their side and the !vote being split, I think the close was the correct one. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are we supposed to discuss the arguments for naming or are we supposed to discuss the validity of the reasoning Drmies used to close? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Per Hobit's well-made arguments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Though the requested move had been open for well over a month, the situation is clearly one of "no consensus". As such, there is nothing wrong with Drmies closure of the move. The only flaw I see with the closure is with regards to the "lack of official name", but that is a minor point and not a reason to overturn the closure. Both sides presented strong arguments, but in the end there are plenty of modern third-party Enlish language sources that use "Tenedos", far more so than "Bozcaada". Athenean (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No there aren't, relative to Bozcaada, and no one ever provided any evidence to that effect at the move discussion, beyond the flawed Google Books numbers discussed and debunked ad nauseam but still clung onto, including by the closing admin. Asserting it again now doesn't make it any truer. By contrast, plenty of evidence and references to atlases, guide books, other encyclopedias and media was provided and not countered - but ignored, supposedly on the basis it had not been presented (hence, again, why this review is necessary). This is all as bizarre as a claim that London should be at Londinium. N-HH talk/edits 08:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are, by a margin of roughly 10 to 1, and while not perfect, the results from Google Books have not been "debunked ad nauseam". The margin in favor of Tenedos is overwhelming and cannot be explained away. This is doubtless why so many people voted "Oppose" (more than those that voted "Support", if we exclude all the socks, meats, and IPs). And as I recall you yourself have mentioned results on Google Books searches in a nomenclature dispute [9]. Athenean (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the 85th time, a Google Book search is not a reflection of "modern" sources and the volume has been explained away due to the prevalence of the historic/Greek name in, er, historic and Greek contexts. Where are the modern atlases, encyclopedias, official international documents and guide books that use Tenedos today? And, yes, I mentioned Google Books as a tool to look into naming issues. You've tried this one already. I never said the raw numbers generated were definitive or said they told us what we had to do. I'm remarkably consistent, in that in this case too I have looked into the Google Book results - and come to the rather obvious conclusion about what they do not tell us. I mean, anyone can do the Google Books search and for starters see that even the first few pages bring up books published in the early part of the last century and the previous one, books about the Trojan War and classical mythology, books about official religious titles and books about African forts, ships. The sheer number of them easily accounts for the 10:1 ratio; and the fact that they come at the top of the search tells quite a lot. Finally, you haven't even addressed the point that the closing admin apparently failed to review the evidence and discussion properly, which is also the point here. N-HH talk/edits 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which GB search you're talking about because the one I performed excluded older sources, as well as false positives about ships and African forts. So much for "debunking". Regarding the close by Drmies, it does seem he made a mistake regarding the official usage, but that by itself is not sufficient to re-open the move. The remainder of his reasoning is impeccable. The move has been open for well over a month now, and anyone in their right mind can see that there is no consensus to move. This has nothing to do with which name is "right", and is not necessarily an endorsement of the current name, but an accurate description of the reality of that discussion. Athenean (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the raw unfiltered figures, as well as your edited one as described above, which includes such books as this one on "Ancient Greek Beliefs" and this one on ships, which refers to the island of Tenedos in the context of the ship with the same name, and also explicitly says "now belonging to Turkey and called Bozcaada". Next? N-HH talk/edits 12:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the GB search was perfect, in fact I did say it included false positives, but so does the search for "Bozcaada". You have to keep in mind however that the error rate is systemic. There is no reason to believe that the percentage of false hits when searching for "Tenedos" is larger than the percentage of false hits when searching for "Bozcaada". The margin of 10:1 is significant no matter how you try to explain it away, and the proof is that it has swayed a significant number of people (in contrast to many of the 'Support arguments that simply consist of "The island should be renamed because it is Turkish"). But anyway this is largely secondary to the question of the move's closure. I do note you did not respond to the points I raised about said closure above. Athenean (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies made a fair assessment of the arguments presented and reached the correct conclusion. He also later clarified his more disputed arguments about official name etc. and I don't see any issues with his clarification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do. Can you explain where he confirmed he had reviewed any modern map/atlas evidence? And yes, he clarified his comments about there being no official name or status - but still completely evaded the fact that the modern official name of the island in the country it is part of is Bozcaada, including in an English-language context, and that this point was dealt with in the move discussion; preferring instead to suddenly start talking about the "official" name under the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Btw Danzig beats Gdansk in Google Books searches by about 5:1. N-HH talk/edits 10:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so sure that I do? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions for the "former closing" admin: Sir, in your reasoning you referred to "the lack of an official name". However, the official name of the island is written in the very article, at the first sentence of the "Name" section, just after the lead: here; it begins like this: "The official name for Tenedos is Bozcaada (meaning earth-brown island), ... My questions: 1. Have you read the article itself? 2. Do you believe the closing admins of move discussions should read the article -as well as the discussion thereof- whose move is discussed and that they perform the closure? 3. If yes, why, do you think, they should read the article itself as well as the discussion? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Sir, those are some really nice questions. The answer is yes, I have read the article. Your second question is unclear (except for the insulting "should they read it" part)--I think it asks whether admins who close a discussion should close a discussion, which answers itself. Question number 3... How about I answer a question that's not a question with one of my own: you mean "official name" as sourced to a tourist piece in Today's Zaman? I am more inclined to believe the officialness of the Treaty, but that's a minor point. In my explanation on Chrisrus's talk page I have spent extra time on this "official" business, and I think I have said enough. Those who have eyes to read... Drmies (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The evidence has always been in favour of Tenedos and the admin did right to take into account the previous move request which also resulted in no consensus. On a general note, I noticed there has been some unnecessary shrillness in matters concerning Turkey-related articles in the last several weeks and this protracted move discussion has been unfortunately a case in point. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the evidence has not always been in favour of Tenedos. Having four nor five people say this over and over again does not make it any more truer. Nor does saying "Several of us going to dig our heels in over this, whatever happens, and with the flimsiest justification, so there's no point raising the issue as it will always end with a verdict of no consensus" mean we have the right decision here (it also explains the protracted nature of the dispute and some of the shrillness). You, like everyone else backing the move, have failed to address the issues of apparent conflict of interest and misreading and mis-citing of evidencein the close decuision. Finally, if we're going to base the evidence on raw Google Book hits, regardless of what modern reference sources actually tell us, will you and all the Greek editors desperately defending this decision now affirm that you all think Didymoteicho should move to its Turkish name Dimetoka, on the basis of a 20:1 ratio in a Google Book search? N-HH talk/edits 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question above. But why are you referring to the Greek editors alone? How about the Turkish editors? Are Gunpowder Ma and Drmies also Greek? Or Nyttend etc.? Is everyone on your wrong side Greek? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I contributed hard evidence for Tenedos early in the debate (1). Brill's New Pauly, one of the foremost encyclopedias on ancient history, has a 2012 entry on the island titled Tenedos. This entry is from this year—one cannot have a more recent and more modern reference source for the continued use of Tenedos. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DrK: You haven't answered half of mine; and the answers to mine are mostly obvious. As for Greek editors, I never said everyone behind the archaic name was Greek. I have no idea even if those who appear to be Greek actually are. However, several assert that they are, and I was wondering how their attachment to the infallibility of Google Book search numbers - as well as that of non-Greek editors - would stand a suggestion that a Greek place move to its Turkish name. If they say they would back it, fine, they are consistent in applying principles. I don't think it's overly cynical of me to raise the possibility that they might not.

@Gun: I recall that claim. I have not seen the content in question and do not know the context. Is it talking about the modern island, or is it - in an encyclopedia on ancient history - talking about history? Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever argued that there are no references to Tenedos in a modern context. That never happens when there are alternative names for a place. However, all the evidence, as cited, suggests such references are in the minority when talking about the modern island, as opposed to the medieval or classical island. N-HH talk/edits 12:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brill's New Pauly an encyclopedia about the ancient world does use Tenedos. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, you know about "the modern context", uses Bozcaada. These sort of claims where someone finds some source and uses it to claim "see, Bozcaada isn't used everywhere," does not help us with the current discussion. Let's keep this on the move closure request and not continue to muddy the evidential waters, please. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making arguments centred on the ethnicity of editors in your questions or replies is ethnic profiling and the lowest form of personal attack so I would ask you to stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, AbstractIllusions, that we don't need to rehash arguments from the move request. But if the evidence is not to be discussed what little then remains to discuss other than the sublimal ad hominem attacks on the closing admin or the evident ethnic undertone which has been increasingly creeping into this discussion...? This move review best dies a prompt and definite death before it becomes really embarrassing. I am out of the debate for now as there has not been added anything new to it for several weeks other than an increasing tone of paranoia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have said constitutes or is driven by "ethnic profiling", "paranoia" or "ad hominem attacks" (subliminal or otherwise - and the irony of being repeatedly on the end of the latter claim is indeed noted). On the ethnic profiling allegation, I was simply and obviously making a theoretical point - that I specifically aimed at every editor, including Greek ones - intended to raise the issue of potential bias or preconceptions, whether intentional or not, and making a point about consistency. Yes this move review has spiralled into a nonsense, but only because of the fact that all the obfuscation and filibustering, and almost wilful misreading of what people such as myself are saying, that dominated the original move discussion has resurfaced here and those of us with any intellectual and objective credibility feel obliged, perhaps foolishly, to respond to it. I'm off too, for the weekend at least, partly because people deserve a rest from me, but also since I'm not sure I can cope with a mob set-up where the blindingly obvious and simple becomes so ridiculously complicated and protracted due to the effective veto of a few. Do you seriously think the editors of all the atlases, guide books and newspapers adduced as evidence went through this sort of lengthy farce before working out something as basic as the common and standard name of this island in 2012? Or do you think it more likely took them about two seconds to come to the obvious conclusion of Bozcaada? Just as it probably took as little time for book publishers to decide to use Tenedos in a historical context. Some people here would find a way to argue endlessly in favour of Lutetia for Paris, or Danzig for Gdansk, and presumably do so with as straight a face as they have here. N-HH talk/edits 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you GPM. You framed the problem quite eloquently. The tragic part is that the ethnic profiling employed here is selective and it only targets the Greek editors, while the Turkish editors are not targeted since they are on the same side of the move argument as the editor who makes the profiling arguments. The even more tragic thing is that noone should be profiled for any reason but somehow this beast rears its ugly head from time to time; its appearance always signifying the utter bankruptcy of reason in the discussion in which it makes its ugly presence felt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm going to break my weekend curfew here as well. The only point about raising "Greek editors" specifically above was a bid to encourage some empathy - to make people think about this topic from a different perspective and query why a place indisputably in one country should be referred to not by the name that country gives it, but by the name preferred by another country altogether, absent any serious evidence that suggests this is what the rest of the world does too in 2012. It's a totally reasonable debating device, akin to saying "swap the word X with the word Y there and see what impression that makes". No, I have not singled out "Turkish editors" here, because the point doesn't apply in the same way in this debate, rather obviously. However, if there was a debate suggesting Didymoteicho should be at Dimetoka (simply on the basis of the latter's 20:1 Google Books domination), I would indeed apply the same device to Turkish editors arguing in favour of that equally poor suggestion. That said, I have previously suggested there is nationalist bias - not ncessarily virulent, and quite possibly inadvertent and unrecognised - on both sides in this dispute and I do not resile from that. The problem for the Greek nationalism is that it puts itself on the wrong side of the evidence; the Turkish nationalism happens to tally with it. German irredentists call Gdansk Danzig, and they are "wrong", even though they have Google Books in their favour too. Polish nationalists call it Gdansk and they are right, even if only by coincidence. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the euphemisms and the victimisation of the Greek editors. By saying The only point about raising "Greek editors" specifically above was a bid to encourage some empathy you are trying to legitimise your ethnic profiling. Please, for the last time, stop stop your racist and condescending comments. You seem to be unable or unwilling to discuss the issues involved without framing other editors based on their ethnic background. I hope you realise the disruption you are causing to the collaborative editing environment necessary for this wiki to function. I also hope you realise the ugliness and utter intellectual failure of your ethnicity-based arguments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call me a racist or suggest that I am framing everything I say in that fashion. It's a slur and blatantly dishonest. I have discussed the naming issue here - at great length - on a variety of levels, primarily on the evidence. Even when I have raised ethnicity, when the evidence has been ignored, it has not been in a racist manner. It's not my fault if you don't understand what I am saying and take any bid to explain it further as, bizarrely, merely further "racism". Exploiting the issue as you are now doing is what is obscene and a manifest attempt to derail any constructive discussion. As noted elsewhere, the idea that any serious publication would spend these hours agonising over the obvious, and do so with this level of vitriol and misrepresentation, is risible. N-HH talk/edits 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my talkpage to threaten me and abuse me. Now you say I don't understand your arguments. You are wrong. I fully understand the ethnic profiling you are employing to besmirch and weaken your opponents. You also told me on my talk that I am trying to derail this discussion. You have to understand one thing: You brought the level of this discussion to an atavistic, WP:AGF-defying stone age by using the ethnicity of the editors you oppose as an aid for your arguments, so do not blame the victims of your ethnic profiling for defending themselves and don't heap abuse on them for calling out your methods. I do not wish to engage with you further as the only thing you do is abuse me by profiling me and the other Greek editors and trying to defend your profiling. I have no time to engage with you and your tactics. As an added bonus for myself not engaging in your mudslinging, you will have no further reason to attack me for trying to derail this discussion by defending myself from your profiling. But if you come back with more abuse be sure that I will defend myself. And just to be clear: This is not only about your comments on this page but also at Talk:Tenedos when you made the following disparaging comments strongly alluding to the Greek editors:

...It's an absolute disgrace that people are holding this up and wasting everyone's time - theirs included - over this, seemingly out of some kind of nationalist wish-fetish. Whether that's down to genuine self-delusion or something more malicious, only they can say...

Where you willfully misrepresent opposition to the move only on nationalist grounds and you disregard that many move-opposers like Gunpowder Ma and many others cannot be possibly regarded as opposing on nationalist grounds. But you chose to specifically target and malign the Greek editors accusing them of having a "fetish", and being either "self-delusional" or "malicious" in the process. This is an unacceptable and nasty, ethnicity-based, personal attack. I chose not to reply to those obvious attacks, since I was reticent to engage such venom and even if I had replied to you then, I am sure you would have accused me of trying to derail the discussion as you did just now. But I could not keep observing these attacks from the sidelines, especially since they wouldn't stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to your talk page because you accused me of racism and asked you - firmly but without anything approaching abuse - to desist. It is a serious slur and I will not accept it, nor should anyone have to without good reason. You have none. Anyway, I'm afraid I am genuinely struggling to understand what is motivating opposition here in the face of all the objective evidence. Are you seriously saying it is coincidence that all the apparently Greek editors are lining up behind the old, Greek name and all the apparently Turkish ones behind the modern, Turkish name? It's not necessarily malicious but equally it is hardly surprising and is something seen in pretty much every similar WP dispute, including ones affecting my country. Sometimes, in the face of the obstructionism on display here, I will express that provocatively out of frustration, but even that example above - let alone the example you initially picked on above - is not racism. In fact I'd argue that your talk about the "whims of Turkish bureacrats" and "unpronounceable names" skirts far closer to it than anything I've said. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said only Greek editors were in favour of Tenedos. Why are you saying that I did? And why are you bothering to tell me at length that others were as well? I am also happy to accept that Greek editors - along with any English classics teachers involved on the T side - are merely looking at this issue from the perspective that seems natural to them rather than that they are members of Golden Dawn or being malicious somehow. However, once the evidence has been presented and is still ignored, as are questions about parallel situations such as Dimetoka, there are only a few conclusions available - people aren't examining the evidence and the logic properly, don't understand WP title rules or have some other agenda behind their refusal to accept it, unwittingly or otherwise. If in an England or UK-related matter someone points out to me that one of my long-held assumptions about something might just be wrong or that I'm applying double standards - possibly because I've only ever seen the issue through English or British eyes - I hope I would have the grace to realise that and then thank them, even if it involves me owning up to a preconception or even a prejudice in that respect. N-HH talk/edits 15:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be that it is you who is on the wrong side of this debate and ignoring evidence, and furthermore wrong in protesting to no end the perfectly valid closure of the requested move by Drmies. Has that possibility even remotely occurred to you? Athenean (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what I wrote above. I didn't say that you said that only the Greek editors were in favour of the move. What I said was that you isolated the Greek editors from the larger "Tenedos" camp and started heaping abuse on them alluding that they are delusional or malicious and having a fetish, all of which are disgraceful. It is this isolation based on their ethnicity, which you initiated, that you refuse to accept. As far as your other "pro-Bozcaada" arguments I don't accept them and I am not obliged to accept them. You have not convinced me. That does not give you the right to isolate me based on my ethnic background or give me lectures about "gracefully accepting" your arguments. Apparently your arguments have not convinced other, non-Greek, editors but you do not seem to be attacking them based on their ethnic background or giving them lectures about "gracefully" accepting your POV. In fact it would demonstrate grace if you would retract your scurrilous comments against the Greek editors as I highlighted above. This would go to great lengths to repair the damage which you have caused to this discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean: No. @DrK: you said I singled out or "isolated" Greek editors. You are continuing to do so. You also felt the need to tell me that non-Greek editors were backing Tenedos, and said you were having to say it "one last time", as if I had been repeatedly denying it. The reality is of course that in terms of talking about nationalism, I have also mentioned Turkish editors. In terms of raising the issue of Greek nationalism, I guess I did single out Greek editors, funnily enough - the claim wouldn't make sense otherwise. When it comes to the point that first got you on the "racism" and "ethnic profiling" high horse - my question about Dimetoka, which you still haven't answered by the way - I was not singling out Greek editors; I actually raised that in response to GPM and aimed my question primarily directly at him, saying that "if we're going to base the evidence on raw Google Book hits, regardless of what modern reference sources actually tell us, will you and all the Greek editors desperately defending this decision now affirm that you all think Didymoteicho should move to its Turkish name Dimetoka, on the basis of a 20:1 ratio in a Google Book search". Of course I mentioned Greeks there as well, because the scenario involves having a Greek place at its Turkish/Ottoman name, the opposite of what is being backed here. N-HH talk/edits 17:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this easier for you by separating the issues involved; although I doubt it would be of any use to do so given your inability to retract your offensive comments thus far. You started your attack on the Greek editors by saying:

...It's an absolute disgrace that people are holding this up and wasting everyone's time - theirs included - over this, seemingly out of some kind of nationalist wish-fetish. Whether that's down to genuine self-delusion or something more malicious, only they can say...

Are you prepared to retract these offensive comments? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a comment and you tell me if it's racist, uncivil personal attack if you would:

"The ongoing East Sea/Sea of Japan debate on Wikipedia is caused by a number of Korean patriots who refuse to accept the reality that it's simply called The Sea of Japan in English, not the East Sea. Imaginary editor "KoreanPride" is clearly one of these."

Was that a racist, uncivil, personal attack on imaginary user KoreanPride? Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? A quiz? Please do not obfuscate the issues any further. I am expecting a reply from a specific editor on a specific issue and I don't have the time to take part in artificial quizzes about imaginary "Patriots". Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following statement a racist uncivil personal attack?

This whole Bozcaada/Tenedos debate exists because a Greek patriots refuse to accept the reality that the name of the island has changed. You, Dr. K, are one of these. Chrisrus (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage in analysing your statements/hypothetical insults, other than to say that I find them uninformed and stupid. Please stop this bizarre line of questioning. I am still expecting a reply from a specific editor on a specific question which I posed to them and I am not interested in replying to your insulting and false hypothetical insults. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dr.K I will not retract the above highlighted statement. It accurately reflects a) my frustration at seeing yet another ridiculous, time-wasting and over-complicated naming issue in a traditional nationalist battle-ground area, especially one where the evidence is so ovewhelming in favour of one name over the other in the wider English-speaking world; and b) what it seemed to me was in part motivating the heel-dragging - there's a clue in the word "seemingly" - against implementing that solution. I have seen this pattern, and seen it observed and noted without the resultant outrage and tangential debates of the sort you have fomented here, in so many of these disputes it seems commonplace to me. As I implied in that quote, and have consistently stated more explicitly since, I am more than willing to accept this is not about deliberate and extreme nationalism as such, but more to do with preconceptions and familiarity with certain terms (your increasing resort to vague and unsupported claims about what you reckon every English-speaker supposedly calls this island suggest the latter may be a factor here). As I have also said, it is open to you and others - although I accept you feel it would dignify what you see as an unwarranted insult to do this - to simply deny the suggestion and instead offer some real, plausible and objective evidence for your stand. You could also answer the question about Dimetoka - and Istanbul/Constantinople, Gdansk/Danzig, Mumbai/Bombay - and Google Book hit counting. The fact that you have done neither is, as they say, noted. N-HH talk/edits 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand or refuse to accept the issues raised in the present case because of your attitude. This is not about a silly Dimetoka - and Istanbul/Constantinople, Gdansk/Danzig, Mumbai/Bombay quiz. It is about resorting to ethnic profiling as a means to prevail in an online discussion. It is about the politics of ethnicity and discrimination. There are non-Greek administrators here who have voted for the name "Tenedos". There are administrators who, after they consulted the evidence, endorse the closure of the move request as no consensus. There are non-Greek supporters of the name "Tenedos" who actually use exactly the same arguments as the Greek editors, and even now in multiple fora non-Greek admins and editors still discuss the intricacies of this case and its policy ramifications. Yet nobody but you, came out to declare open season on the Greek editors. Nobody but you, told the Greek editors that they have a "fetish" or are "delusional" or "malicious". Everybody is still discussing in good faith the issues but noone else but you is maligning the Greek editors or is blaming them for the impasse and try to frame the discussion so that they are the villains, conveniently putting them, framing them, in small epithet-laden camps. You want to use the ethnicity of these editors as a convenient scapegoat instead of addressing the issues. I am well aware of Godwin's law but for the sake of peace I will not invoke it. For the sake of peace I will not call you a bigot either for maligning the ethnicity of the Greek editors and refusing to retract your malicious comments. I will not use your ethnicity against you, as you have done with mine against me, because this is a sacrosanct principle for me. I just hope that I will never see you in another discussion again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:I am sorry I disturbed you with my poor English but also am happy you could understand my questions all the same. (You are not right about the insult claim though. If you look at the words with a magnifying glass you can find that anywhere; for example people with a visual handicap might think you insulted them when you said who have eyes can read. Ask this to your three-year old if you do not believe me, but please first tell him/her my apologies for referring to him/her here; I would never do that by myself if you were not the first to do so. I also apologize, in advance, to you and to the community for this inappropriate reference. I would humbly recommend you to do the same, considering, moreover that you are still an admin here, not a simple user like this scribe.) As you have read the article in discussion, I am sure you might have seen the links to the "official websites" of both the municipality and the governorate of "Bozcaada" (Tenedos for you). Of course they are "Turkish" sources, I am not sure if Turkish authorities are official enough for you... --E4024 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not disturbed, though you and my wife's mileage may vary. I think your English is good enough to ask me if I read the article, as if I didn't. You may not know that I was making a completely gratuitous allusion to Matthew 11:15; I don't think anyone with a visual handicap would have taken offense but then again, you never know--some people are indeed very poor readers. The rest of your sarcasm is lost on me, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Upon closing, Drmies spoke of the lack of official status for the islands, betraying that he wasn't informed of the facts. When asked what maps he'd referred to, he claimed that he didn't need to look at any maps, even though some were presented in the discussion. He also spoke about the head count, although he's supposed to only take into account the quality of arguments made. He spoke of the Google Book count, as if he didn't understand the point that most books that talk about the island discuss it's role in the classical period when it was a somewhat important place, and that it's just an obscure island now. If you compare his "investigation" to mine, here: Talk:Tenedos#Has_anyone_suggested_nameing_it_.22Tenedos_or_Bozcaada.22_or_.22Bozcaada_or_Tenedos_.22.3F, you will see that he didn't really ask questions and try to understand the issue well. Since then, he's left messages on my page saying various things, but he explains his statement about the official status by seeming to claim that "official" is an ambiguous term to him, and that he thought it might mean something special to Wikipedia. This is hard to swallow. Overall, it was a poorly executed investigation of the facts. By the facts and reason and Wikipedia guidelines and rules and such, this should be an open and shut case, yet time after time someone like him comes in and closes it and I really want to understand why and what we can change about the system to keep it from happening. Here's my theory:

An analogy: My uncle is a lawyer, and he told me this story. One expert came in and made some claims. Another expert came in and completely methodically took about everything the first expert had said, showing how it was all demonstrably wrong. When it came time to decide, one woman on the jury refused to side with the evidence and reason, stating "That one doctor shouldn't have been so rude to that other doctor! He was a big bully to that poor man."

Point of the story: Sometimes, people sympathize with the side that loses an arguement for some ideosyncratic personal emotional or philosophical reasons, and evidence and reason will doesn't sway them so much. This is my theory why this keeps happening. People like that sometimes can be found in conflict resolution roles, where they try to find a common ground between debators, and seem to go on the assumption that whenever people are arguing, the truth is always found in some middle ground where everyone can go away feeling validated. Kurt Vonegut spoke about a chronosynclastic infundibulum where everyone is equally right and no one wrong. Unfortunately, that's not real and such considerations are not to be considered according to Wikipedia rules. I think that may be what is happening here, but I admit I'm still perplexed because when you line up the facts and reason in this case with our unambiguous naming guidelines, one side here loses and the other wins and there is no common ground. So I have come up with this theory as to why admins keep blocking this move despite the facts and their own rules.

Finally, I'd like to end my comments today with a song that is on topic that I hope you will all enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsRuurcTTSk&feature=related. Good day. Chrisrus (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I was not filled in on this administrative conspiracy to keep this article under its current name, but I can see how this would make sense to you. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please note how inaccurately Dr. Mies characterizes everything I'd said. Mies, scroll up and read it please and reply to what I actually said. Chrisrus (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can Drmies explain in simple words why he claimed that the island didn't have an official name? I've seen some attempt to answer this question but I fail to see him addressing numerous official documents that were mentioned as a part of the move request. I'd also would like to hear why he chose one opinion while ignoring all others regardless if they voted in opposition or support. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Hello Dr. Mies. Have you had a chance to look at all the latest English language maps?

Next, thank you for trying to explain what you meant when said, upon closing, what you did about the islands lacking an official name. I'm not quite sure I understood what you meant, however. Could you, if you would, just explain one more time? I'm still confused about that. You seemed to be saying that the term "official name" could have several meanings, is that correct? Which meaning did you have in mind when you wrote it?

Also, have you had a chance to look at this, my investigation into this matter? Did I seem to have done a thorough job? I tried to ask lots of questions and let everyone know what I was thinking at each stage and to hear everyone out. How'd I do? I tried to bend over backwards to find a way that the position that seemed correct could be wrong, but is there anything that I seem to have overlooked? Please let me know if you can see any point where I was misinformed or otherwise went wrong.

And, I'm sorry I behaved improperly. I didn't know the procedure.

Next, don't you think "move review" is not the best name for a procedure you're supposed to follow when there hasn't been any move to review?

Finally, how did you like the song? Here it is again in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsRuurcTTSk&feature=related Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is that link to an infantile youtube video somehow supposed to be an argument against the closure of the requested move? Athenean (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus, I assure you that I did not invent the term "Move review" for this process. You could start a discussion on renaming it. Drmies (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked whether you thought it was a strange name. But nevermind. Please answer the questions:

For the record, what did you mean when you referred to a lack of an official name?

Have you seen the maps? At what point did you check what maps and what did you learn when you checked the maps?

What did you think about this, my investigation into this matter? Was it a good investigation? How does it compare to yours? Do I seem to have done a thorough job? I tried to ask lots of questions and let everyone know what I was thinking at each stage and to hear everyone out. Did you? I tried to bend over backwards to find a way that the position that seemed correct could be wrong, but is there anything that I seem to have overlooked? Please let me know if you can see any point where I was misinformed or otherwise went wrong. How does it compare to your investigation? Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: doing a move request every half year doesn't change the fact that Tenedos is more common in English. I am opposed to repeat move requests every few months and see no fault in User:Drmies decision to close the discussion. This whole attack-page on Drmies should be shot down asap and as suggested earlier by me a two year moratorium on further move requests should be enacted regarding Tenedos. noclador (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close There is no doubt as to whether this was a "controversial" close, not to use stronger words, by the closing admin (or the "former" closing admin in their own words) as the close is being discussed in a special forum as a possible flaw in policy. Here. --E4024 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Close - The reasons provided for decision to close were not adequately considering the arguments. When I look at the issue, Bozcaada is not only used more frequently in written publications but it is becoming more so. Searching for academic articles published since last year, Tenedos returns only 22 papers (some of which not related to the island) and Bozcaada returns 77 results (all related to the island). I have done this comparison in Google Scholar excluding social sciences in order to eliminate history and mythology where Tenedos name is of course retained. Comparing with previous years, Bozcaada is used more frequently at least since the year 2000 but the trends is becoming more pronounced. Filanca (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Filanca: could you please describe the parameters of your search? When I follow the two links given by you above google gives me: 211 results for Tenedos and 172 results for Bozcaada! (copying the two links to other browsers - Opera, Chrome, IE9 - also gives 211 and 172 articles) thanks, noclador (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador, you are right. I think the reason you obtain different results is Google's new Scholar interface. It should be possible to replicate the results I obtained by opening the old interface link as suggtested here. Once you see the Scholar search screen click "Advanced Scholar Search". Find articles with Tenedos (then Bozcaada) but exclude "HMS Tenedos". In the "Search only for articles in the following subject areas" section, check all boxes except "Social sciences, Arts and Humanities". This eliminates history and mythology papers. Fill "In return articles published between" boxes with 2011-2012 or any other time range. It is interesting to note that if you search for the articles published between 1950-1999, Tenedos is more popular (102 vs. 53). Search for articles 2000-2010, and Bozcaada becomes more popular (318 vs. 163). This popularity becomes proportionally more pronounced for articles published since the last year (77 vs. 22). This is why I spoke of a "trend" for Bozcaada becoming more popular as time passes. Filanca (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Google Scholar though, and the reason I have avoided it, is that to my knowledge there is no way to exclude non-English language publications, which if true, make it inappropriate as a search tool for our purposes here. Athenean (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning. I checked the articles published between 2011-2012 by excluding the word "the" which should appear in all English papers. It returned no results. Apparently all papers in either search (Bozcaada or Tenedos) are in English. Filanca (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Filanca - I was able to recreate your search (with slightly different results of 26 to 92 papers), but I have to ask if we can consider google scholar as reliable when a change in interface results in such wildly diverging results? Especially as also the average of papers seems to have massively jumped in the last years (on reason obviously must be that google nowadays scans everything; however the increase in papers p.a. is quite radical) i.e.

1950-1999 = 50 publication years and 155 papers for Tenedos/Bozcaada; 2000-2010 = 11 publication years and 481 papers for Tenedos/Bozcaada; and since the last year = about 1,5 publication years and 99 papers for Tenedos/Bozcaada... that makes averages of:

• 1950-1999 of 3.1 papers p.a.
• 2000-2010 of 43.73 papers p.a. (+1,410% compared to the average p.a. of the period before)
• 2011-today of 66 papers p.a. (+66% compared to the average p.a. of the period before)

also looking at the papers in the results it shows that a a few mention both names (i.e. "Tenedos/Bozcaada", or "Tenedos (Bozcaada)", etc.); furthermore looking at the papers authors: most papers using Bozcaada have been published by Turkish scholars, and many using Tenedos have been published by Greek scholars. Is google scholar reliable? or should such google scholar results be considered unrelaible? noclador (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador, with the recent economic boom on the island it may be becoming more of an academic interest in many disciplines, hence more papers may be referring to it. I am also sure that more scientific articles are written per annum today than 50 years ago. On the other hand, I also agree that Google Scholar may be favoring newer articles over older ones. However, it can not conceivably favor articles using either name. Unless we see any reason against that, we may assume articles that appear in Google Scholar fairly represent use of inland's names in scientific publications.

You are also probably correct about Turkish scholars generally prefer Bozcaada and Greeks prefer Tenedos. This may not be out of a nationalist sentiment but rather being more accustomed with one name over another. Yet, I would say, many of those articles are published in scientific papers, peer reviewed, edited, corrected, in many cases by native English speakers or international scientific staff. The sheer fact that "Bozcaada" appears in so many magazines is indicative of its usage in English.

On the other hand, some of those articles are co-authored by non-Turkish scholars, and in some cases completely by foreigners. Searching for Bozcaada in non-history papers published in 2012 yields 41 results. 28 of those are written by Turkish scholars only. 6 articles are co-authored by foreigners. 7 articles have no Turkish authors, they are written entirely by non-Turkish scholars. Yes, I had to count those myself, judging from how the names sound, so it may not be 100% accurate. Filanca (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filanca, I wish you had presented this evidence in the discussion: it will prove very useful in the future, no doubt--a. because it is useful and b. because this will happen again. Any admin who attempts to close the next discussion will be glad to read such an analysis, which is also a breath of fresh air. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of flaws in close decision

Official name

In his closing note, Drmies specifically claimed there was “the lack of an official name and status”. We do not go by official names, but they count and this claim in the close rather obviously suggest that the closer failed to review the main discussion. It included references to the official name 21 times, including the following statements (and this does not include similar references in previous and surrounding threads):

• “Bozcaada is much preferred and the modern official name” – User: AbstractIllusions, following his list of references

• “official government publications” refer to it as Bozcaada ... “because it’s the official name” – User:Athenean, a pro-T editor

• “the official name, which is Bozcaada” ... “the official name is Bozcaada according to the government that controls the island, a fact reflected in contemporary usage by the Council of Europe, The United Nations, and NATO” – User:AbstractIllusions again, at various points across the debate

• “The official Turkish name is irrelevant here” – User:Gun Powder Ma, also a pro-T editor

• Bozcaada “is the official name of the island per the National-Geospacial Intelligence Agency, Geographic Names Database, where-as Tenedos is merely a variant” – User:Mike Cline

• The article itself says: “The official name for Tenedos is Bozcaada (meaning earth-brown island), but the island has been known by many names over the centuries”

Maps

User:Drmies claimed he did not have to look at any maps since he only had to look at what was brought to the table in the discussion rather than do his own research. However, maps were presented –

• In his opening statement, User:AbstractIllusions linked to a Google Docs spreadsheet which clearly lists the 2011 edition of the Oxford Atlas of the World, the 2005 edition of the National Geographic Atlas of the World, the 1999 edition of the Times Atlas of the World and Google Maps as having the island at Bozcaada.

• I linked to a map included on a CIA website, which clearly labels the island Bozcaada

• Other users also referred to maps, without immediate links or cites, for example – “named Bozacaada in almost all international maps” – User:Nedim Ardoga; “Please do go check modern English language maps published by the usual well known cartographical organizations” – User:Chrisrus; “Virtually every news source, map, reference work and guide book cited has this place as Bozcaada and this has been demonstrated above” – self; “Could you please explain why we should ignore all the other evidence for the use of Bozcaada, such as encyclopedias, maps, guide books” ... “The fact is most reliable encyclopedias, maps, guide books etc. do favor "Bozcaada” – User:TheDarkLordSeth

Google Books

User:Drmies pretty much seemed to take the Google Books and Scholar results as a given, with only a cautionary note appended: “The preference discovered for Tenedos using Google Books and Google Scholar, while taken by themselves not necessarily conclusive, strongly support the suggestion that Tenedos is preferred in English”

This is not how WP rules tell us to deal with Google results. I've posted an analysis of the book results here

Not a vote

Per User:Drmies - “the head count slightly favors the supporters of a renaming, but, and there is a but here, it appears that not all "support" votes are equal. That of a now-indef blocked editor should be discredited, and some of the IP votes appear out of a digital nowhere. A recount, then, is pretty much a draw ... it is my opinion that this RfC does not present sufficient consensus”

Discussions of this sort are, indeed, not a vote.

As I have said elsewhere, there is a precedent for this kind of thing, the move at Taiwan, where the admins involved (there were three, which may be OTT here, but the principle stands) overrode strong but ultimately untenable opposition to finally resolve a long-running dispute that resurfaced with tedious regularity. They explained their rationale at length, with detailed reference to evidence and WP rules. Since then, the main article has been relatively calm. The mistake is to think that because an obvious but controversial move is constantly resisted, once it takes place, there will be the same and opposite constant pressure to move it back, hence there's no advantage to making the move (disregarding accuracy issues of course). This misunderstands the dynamics at play - once the recalcitrant position loses the "advantage" of inertia it dies away. People feel able to defend a dubious status quo, but once it ceases to be the status quo, most accept the absurdity of ever suggesting a return to it. N-HH talk/edits 10:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only mistake by Drmies in the closure of the requested move discussion is with regards to the "official usage" thing, but that is not a reason to overturn the move closure. The requested move was open for well over a month, and anyone in their right mind can see from the discussion that there is no consensus for the move. The refusal of one side to accept this outcome is not a reason to overturn the RM closure. Athenean (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn close There is clear evidence that drmies did not read the full move request discussion, although I do not believe this was done deliberately, closing without the full discussion does not fulfill the spirit nor discussion of consensus on WP:RMCI. A reversal of the close is thus warranted and review by a new administrator. I prefer a simple play-by-play so here it is: 1. September 12, 2012, DRMIES closes the Tenedos name request with this reason: "Combine that with the lack of an official name and status". 2. When pressed on where he got this information he responded "The 'official' name was brought up in a few places, in relation to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne: 'the official name of the island according to international peacy treaties is Tenedos, still under a de-jure semi-autonomous status', according to one of the editors, and no one disputes that fact though its meaning was disputed". On his talk page with me he has repeated that there were no challenges to the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne establishes official name. Ignore where this is interpreting an international treaty without any evidence on how to do so or even the phrase "original name" mentioned in the treaty (which is probably not how weight to claims should be evaluated). But 3. the very fact that the 1923 Treaty established official names was disputed. Here is my answer to it ""Place names in the Treaty of Lausanne: "Serbo-Croat-Slovene State", "Castellorizzo", "Soudan", "Sea of Marmora", "Roumania", "Persia", etc. The treaty does not establish naming obviously and shouldn't because it is not updatable". The point being: the official name is not established in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. So the basic fact was disputed, not only its meaning. The only conclusion to reach then is that the full discussion was not read. I do not think this was done malevolently or without rigor of reading, but because the discussion went over this point three places and the discussion was under four different headings (all grouped together, but still four different ones). Thus, the close was done not in accordance with WP:RMCI and consensus was not determined before close. It may not change the outcome, and the conclusion may be the same in the end, but the evidence at least deserves a full read. I think drmies operated in a rigorous and good faith manner, but that honest good faith mistakes do occur. And unfortunately this one 1. may make a difference, particularly when we move from the broad Commonname to the appropriate WP:NCGN, and 2. does not help us reach stability because it encourages needless discussion about the "official name". I'm not sure if the close was right based on the evidence or not, but the close was not based on full evidence and thus should be analyzed by another admin for close. Thank you. _{(disclaimer: I made the original move request.)} AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N-HH, concerning your "analysis" may I remind you that only two weeks ago you conceded that you did not even know where or what Tenedos was and that you came to the move discussion in the first place by following me around. Never mind this, but it does make one wonder about your strong advocacy and the depth of your insight. Even taking into account that I have been arguing for Tenedos, I have to say that I have yet to see a situation on Wikipedia where two successive discussions both clearly resulting in no consensus are overturned by merely repeating the same point over, all the while against such overwhelming numerical odds in Google Books. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder, it seems reasonable to me that the Google books count result is likely due to the fact that most references to the island are in history books and such, because since becoming Turkish, not much notable has happened on the island, but it did factor into some somewhat important historical events back when it was called "Tenedos". Are you at least open to the possiblity that most of the google books references to this island are likely historical references? If this does not seem reasonable to you, why not? Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no GPM, first I did not "concede" that I was following you around. Nor have I been. However, yes, I did not know anything about Tenedos when I came to the debate. And guess what? That means I arrived with an open mind and without any baggage. I looked at the evidence presented, which is so ovewhelming in terms of what the island is called today in a modern context, both officially by the country that it is part of and by every single modern reference and media source, that there was no other possible conclusion. As for repeating points, it's been explained about 100 times now why the Google Books numbers are flawed - and how, if we followed that logic, Gdansk would be at Danzig, for example. Anyone suggesting that move would be laughed off that page. And no, the accuracy of WP page titles should not be decided by effective veto by those repeatedly throwing out massive flawed defences of the status quo; and then by claims about too many failed RMs. As I have said, once we finally make it to the "right" status quo of the common modern name, it will stick, because the weakness of the arguments in favour of any return move will be so obvious when the onus is on them to make the case pro-actively, rather than being able to rely on intertia and veto. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette issues

Above I endorsed the close and not even an hour later I was told on my talkpage "reconsider your position on Tenedos". The comment by User:Chrisrus is polite, but I do find it objectionable that users who participate in this discussion and do not agree with a certain POV are told to "reconsider" on their talkpages. Editors might (and I will) reconsider my vote if new and convincing arguments are presented on the talkpage of the article in question; and all discussions should take place on said talkpages. To tell editors, who have a different opinion, to reconsider could - in case it is done systematically - be considered harassment. As of now I did not see anything that would make me consider to reconsider my vote, I will not change my endorsement of the close of the move discussion. noclador (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, were you really "told" on your talkpage to do anything? Please consider stricking through your use of the word "told" and replacing it with "asked politely". I asked you on your talk page instead of here in hopes of helping you save face. If you want to see something that might make you consider to reconsider your vote, check some maps, you may not have noticed that the name of this place has changed on all the latest maps. Chrisrus (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually been the fourth unsuccessful move request within 1.5 years (1, 2, 3, 4). In the light of this persistent failure to accept the community's position which is invariably no consensus to move, I propose that we discuss these move requests and individual contributions from now on also in terms of the WP policies WP:disruptive editing and, with a view to some insinuations, WP:PA. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You hoped to "helping you save face."? Seriously?? You think that people who do not vote for Bozcaada will loose face?

Maps usually use the official government name, not the most common name! Alas we here go with the most common name. noclador (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to check news reports and such about the modern place and reconsider. The name of this place has changed. Chrisrus (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions like helping you save face are more characteristic of a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment than a serious onomatological discussion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Noclador. Also news reports are covered by WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. A time-honoured WP:COMMONNAME which has remained in the English dictionary for hundreds of years is not going to change overnight because some news outlets have decided to call it an unpronounceable new name. For the English-speaking people "Tenedos" has been and will be for the foreseeable future the de facto commonname. Peoples' perceptions and words that have been in use for hundreds of years cannot change overnight just because the Turkish government decided to call the place using a different, and completely foreign to the English language, term. This is not how language evolves. You cannot impose linguistic engineering to peoples' vocabulary and make them change their names which they have used for hundreds of years just to follow the whims of a Turkish bureaucrat who decided to erase a time-honoured name. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your overdramatizing this with such language. This is simply a case of a place whose name has changed, that's all. It happens. The names of places change sometimes. Google News searches seem to prove that the language has moved on already, nothing we do here will effect that. Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with me I am perfectly fine. But I don't agree with your characterisations of my comments and I still believe in the above statements. There is nothing dramatic about linguistic engineering. It is part of propaganda and political engineering and happens all the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the English-speaking readers of the English Wikipedia search for when they arrive here: According to the Wikipedia page-view stats, we get 686 hits for Bozcaada and 6656 hits for Tenedos, mirroring roughly the 10:1 Google books ratio in favour of Tenedos. The stats indicate that "Tenedos" is the familiar search name for the readers of the English Wikipedia by a wide margin. Conclusion: You cannot make the population change their onomatology by using top-down linguistic engineering to impose a new term to their brains. People are more resilient than that and they are still going to use their familiar names to search for the island. And the natural and familiar name for the English-speaking public is "Tenedos". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the results represent number of unique users or simply the number the article is accessed? Also, the only point that supports Tenedos being the common name is the flawed search results in Google Books. Other than that it's been shown that Bozcaada is the overwhelmingly preferred name in the English world. You might also wanna start a move request for Phoenice as it provides more results compared to Tenedos. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results cannot be clearly apportioned between "unique users" or "access events"; this fact cannot be established from the raw stats. But it does indicate a strong preference for the term. As far as your other points, I am not going to start a new discussion here because I believe they have been covered/discussed elsewhere. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then those results are even more flawed. They don't represent any reality. They can easily be manipulated. You might wanna check the WP:GOOGLETEST on how Google search can mislead people as well. What is your thoughts on the name "Phoenice" by the way? I think I've missed your response on that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. I just thought you would mercifully drop it on your own, but no luck. I simply don't have the time to argue with you every time you come up with another silly point. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why, if Google Books results gonna be the only factor we're gonna look at, we can't apply this factor to other names of the island. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, maybe you were confused about it but the Wiki policy that you linked to using a disruptive word does not apply to my suggestion. Last time I checked Wikipedia does not tell us to rely solely on Google results. You might wanna read WP:TITLE, WP:PLACE and WP:GOOGLETEST. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to avoid replying to you trying to avoid the predictable personal attack that I knew was coming from you. When you saw that your first reply did not get any answer from me you added another comment alleging that I am "confused", which is a tactic of yours which you frequently employ in your exchanges with me. Since I see that you are not stopping and are trying to elicit a response from me by baiting me, let me try to make you stop: No, you are confused or just being disruptive and making WP:POINTY and trollish remarks. Let me explain: If you are asking a rhetorical question you need no answer but asking rhetorical questions in the middle of another discussion is POINTY and therefore disruptive. If you are not asking a rhetorical question, you are still asking a question which has been discussed ad nauseam during this move review and at the main Tenedos page move, so it still pointy or trolling to direct it to me so that you can make me waste my time by repeating to you the replies that have been given already a million times. So stop using the word "confused" because it is a nasty personal attack and completely unwarranted. Also stop your baiting tactics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read your Wiki link after I responded to you and realized that it had nothing to do with what I was asking you. I'm sorry if that confused you. Making a quick Ctrl+F search to see if the Phoenice name have been used on this page or on the Talk page to make sure that I didn't miss it shows that it's only been mentioned by me on this page. As a person who advocates relying on Google Books search results for this page I'd like to have your thoughts on the name "Phoenice" which gives more results on Google Books search compared to "Tenedos". May I also remind you WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF? Thanks. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. I can only remind you of WP:BAIT, WP:TROLL and WP:NPA and leave it at that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just here to correct a false claim: "Maps usually use the official government name, not the most common name!" is not true. There is no source that supports this (or would support this), it is an unsubstantiated claim without any evidence. But a look through any Atlas will show that it is 100% false and that the Atlas editors routinely choose (their interpretation of) the common English name and not simply the official government name. A good example, but not the only one, is the preference in every Atlas I've looked at for "Ephesus" over the official name of "Efes". Atlases, edited by National Geographic, Oxford, and the Times of London, do not simply reflect government policy, they are efforts by trained/experienced cartographers and editors to provide the common name for places. You don't have to like Atlases, you can say they are one source amongst many, but let's not claim they do things that they don't; that's not good for discussion. Thank you. _{Note: I'm traveling after this, so there will be no response by me to any comments on this.} AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And, on a more theoretical level, the "everyone's just following some Turkish bureaucrat" argument fails to notice that if everyone does, indeed, start following said "Turkish bureaucrat", then we have the common name. If Turkey uses this name for its island (or rather, now prefers one alternative over another) and the vast majority of modern publications discussing the island in a modern context do the same, then that is the name of the island, regardless of any individual WP editor's unevidenced claim that "English-speaking people" don't use it or their fulminations about the Turkish government "imposing" a "completely foreign" and "unpronounceable" term to replace a "time-honoured" one. Even if "English-speaking people" as whole do not use Bozcaada (which seems unlikely anyway on brief online investigation, going on usage in lower-tier online sites such as blogs and hotel websites for example), and even if we could prove that somehow, it would not matter. We go on usage in reliable, published sources. N-HH talk/edits 15:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And said reliable published sources use "Tenedos" by a margin of close to 10 to 1. As for the atlases, well, the Efes/Ephesus example doesn't really apply, as it is uninhabited, and has been since pre-Ottoman times. You will have to find another example to prove that atlases do not strictly follow official usage. But this is all secondary anyway, what we are supposed to discuss here is the closure of the requested move by Drmies. Athenean (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been previously said that popularity of Tenedos is due to history and mythology. Work on these areas will of course always use Tenedos - this is not only correct for English but also for works in Turkish language. That does not affect modern usage. Placenames keep their names pertaining to a certain period. We should look at the name of the island in the modern context, independent of history. Also compare Google Books results of Mumbai versus Bombay. Although the modern usage (and Wikipedia article name) is Mumbai, Bombay yields overwhelmingly more Google Books results. Filanca (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close After attempting to review the discussion at the RM, I believe that Drmies no consensus to move is within the established guidelines for closing move requests and there is no evidence of an improper close. --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Please explain in more detail. Chrisrus (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence presented for either name (for example, the google books stats versus the news sources mentioned in the nom) and a closing admin could read that as 'no consensus'. Note that this does not mean that other admins (moi, for example) would have read consensus the same way but rather that a 'no consensus' decision is not out of the norm for a discussion of this sort. --regentspark (comment) 20:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, the problem seem to be that it's "not out of the norm" for an adminstrator not to do any kind of thorough investigation before closing? We just sort of scan it for sign of clear consensus, and, seeing none readily apparent, then it's normal to close, leaving things as they had been? And by "thorough investigation", I mean something like this, Talk:Tenedos#Has_anyone_suggested_nameing_it_.22Tenedos_or_Bozcaada.22_or_.22Bozcaada_or_Tenedos_.22.3F, which involves asking lots of questions and a mind that's open but not so open your brain falls out, always with the implied clause "let me make sure I understand, your saying X, is that correct?; that kind of thing, that kind of thorough investigation, that's not the way it's usually done around here? Chrisrus (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus, I empathize with your position. But, do note that this is a move review. The purpose of a move review is to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. In my view, the close was reasonable and not inconsistent with the ..... (rest of the stuff). I don't see drmies pushing his/her own pov. And, based on the evidence provided, a 'no consensus' conclusion is reasonable. Now, you can argue that this is a failure of policy but that's a different story and a discussion for a different place. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like you I'm more interested in the policy level over on the other pages. I'm not convinced, however, that I've yet pinpointed the policy flaw which caused not only the Drmies but also several other such closings previously. There's no point in opening yet another move request, is there, until we figure out what keeps going wrong every time and fixing it, you will agree, I feel sure. For example, why do you think he said what he did upon closing about there not being a clear official name? And why did you say what you did when you supported it? Had you read "Overturn close and retiontion at current title and ideally move asap....", etc., above, all the way to the top before you issued your support of Mies' action? Wait. I stop here. Please first if you would just please do tell me yes/no whether you had read "Overturn close and retention...", etc. at the top of the page before you supported the close, a simple yes/no question from me to you if you would please answer. Chrisrus (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --regentspark (comment) 02:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What, for example, led you to the conclusion that first part, "The close was against title policy, given that the modern, official Turkish name for the island—Bozcaada—is used in nearly every international English-language map/atlas, media source, reference work and reputable travel book in 2012. The close gave undue weight to the fact that a raw Google Book hit count shows more hits for the historical/Greek name Tenedos, given references to its classical past (as well as numerous ships and horses named after the island). WP:TITLE and WP:NCGN explicitly warns about the risks of such raw counts.", for example, was 180 degrees from true? Chrisrus (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me the wrong question for a move review. You're asking me how I would weight google books (and google scholar as quoted by drmies) over maps and other sources and that's not the subject of this review. But, that said, the proportions that I saw where quite large so it is not unreasonable for the closer to assume that Tenedos outnumbers Bozcaada. I might have given g-books and g-scholar more or less weight but that's not the point here. --regentspark (comment) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't WP:TITLE and WP:PLACE say not to use the historical name, but the modern name? Lots of those books talk about the historical place. And what about when he said what he said, on closing, about a lack of an official name? That didn't bother you at all? How could he have done a thorough investigation if he thought there was no official name? Did you ask him about that? Chrisrus (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. What's the point here? Is it that Drmies failed to go by Wiki policy and gave undue weight to Google results? Is it the fact that he used incorrect information in his closing words pointing out that he didn't really made himself familiar with the arguments of the move? Or is it something else? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. When he closed he talked about a lack of an official name and I saw that and said "wow, this guy really didn't look into this matter at all to have said that", so I reverted him and asked him what he meant when he said that because there was no sign at all that he'd done any investigation on the talk page in terms of making sure he understood the situation first, and there was clear evidence that he hadn't done that when he said what he did on closing about the lack of an official name. You can't speak of a lack of an official name for the place and have put much effort into understanding what it was all about, so a clear sloppy close. Then also, yes, when he closed, he spoke of a head count. He'd done a little head count and didn't find consensus. But that's a violation of WP:NOTAVOTE, he's supposed to pay attention to the quality of arguments and that is all. So we thought his closure was not within the established guidelines and norms of Wikipedia including WP:PLACE and WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:GOOGLESEARCH. But all these adminstrators keep coming in here and saying that his closure was within established guidenlines and I want to know how they can say that. Chrisrus (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, all the move review needs to do is to see whether the result was reasonable. I believe that a 'no consensus' close was a reasonable reading of the discussion. I can only add that I had been following the RM discussion for a while (I closed a number of discussions while this was in the RM backlog) and would likely have closed it myself if drmies had not got there first. Either of a 'no consensus' or a 'move' close was, in my opinion, reasonable and I'm not sure which one I would have picked (which is why I hesitated to close it myself). The purpose of an RM discussion is to give editors some space to move on and I strongly suggest you all use that space. No title is written in stone and it is possible that a later RM would move the article to Bozcaada (or leave it unqualified at Tenedos), but you need to look ahead, not behind you. A secondary suggestion is that, if this review is closed as endorse, any future discussion focus on two things (1) the name that current sources predominantly use, and (2) the relative weights of modern usage versus classical usage (or, to put it simply, whether our readers will be coming from the classical name Tenedos or the modern name Bozcaada). My reading of the discussion is that the first point is reasonably established in favor of Bozcaada but the second is not. Arguments based primarily on official name or on tourist guides and maps are, in my opinion, generally not good ones. --regentspark (comment) 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Wiki policies and guidelines are you basing this decision on? I fail to find any. You seem to be contradicting the policy as it tells us to look at reliable English sources (tourist guides, maps, etc.). TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT and WP:PLACE tell us to look at tourist guides and maps? Or are you suggesting that your interpretation of reliable sources includes tourist guides? --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote relevant sections from the policies that you use that lead to your discussion? I could easily say that Lonely Planet is a reliable source. It's the largest guide book publisher and uses common names instead of the official ones. Why would it not be a reliable source? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, tourist guides are not reliable sources for anything. Please also note my point number 2 above. You might also want to consider whether this extended discussion has a purpose (though I will continue to attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability). --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they be a reliable source? We're not talking about minor local travel pamphlets but world's largest travel guide. Your second point talks about the modern and classical usage. I believe that's a non-issue. Look at the article. The article is mainly about the modern island and only Antiquity and Late Middle Ages sections refer to the classical usage rightfully (which would continue to use the name "Tenedos" even if the article's name is changed to "Bozcaada"). If we ever have an article that refers to the island's ancient history like Constantinople we could very well name that "Tenedos" but we don't have that case. I still don't know what exactly you base your decision on and that's a little confusing because I don't see what you can base it on the policies and guidelines you've mentioned. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which decision are you referring to (when you say "what exactly you base your decision on"? --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision that "a 'no consensus' close was a reasonable reading of the discussion". TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see the confusion. That's an opinion, not a decision. What part of the reasoning behind my opinion confuses you? As I've explained, based on the arguments in the move discussion, I might very well have closed it as no consensus. I've explained that the amount of weight given to google books is subjective and a move review that challenges that weight, particularly when the evidence shows an overwhelming difference between the two alternatives, is insufficient reason to invalidate the closure. I've explained that within the purview of a move review, that is all that matters. Is there something particularly confusing about these statements? --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part that confuses me is that that conclusion is not based on Wiki policies or guidelines. Actually, WP:GOOGLETEST talks explicitly about how Google search results can mislead people: "Note, however, that Google searches may report vastly more hits than actually exist, especially for exact quoted expressions." The Google results also don't necessarily tell us the context the name is used, though, going through pages (I went up to 20 before getting bored) you'll see that the majority of them are about the ancient history of the island. To make it more clear, I'm looking for a Wiki policy that tells us to use Google results over others even when it's the only factor that supports one option. So far, I've only found policies or guidelines that cast doubt to use of it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Note, however" != ignore completely. Also, read the section on google books. --regentspark (comment) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean we're supposed to rely on it either. I never argued to ignore them. I read the Google Books part and didn't see anything against what I've been arguing. I'm still looking for a policy or a guideline that shows how we can solely rely on Google Books results and ignore the rest. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find one. Just like you won't find a policy statement that says "use whatever lonely planet says" or "use whatever rand mcnally says". No policy worth its salt can make a blanket statement like that because everything depends on context. --regentspark (comment) 02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have one for the evidence that supports "Bozcaada". It tells us to use reliable sources. Using Google results over reliable sources would be a violation of Wiki policies. This isn't a situation where the line between the evidence of both sides is blurry. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google books results are also reliable sources. So we have competing narratives here. One, newspapers like the New York Times that use Bozcaada when talking about the place, and others, from google books, that talk about the classical place. Like everything else, there is a tradeoff involved and that tradeoff could fall on either side. Oddly, I started out thinking that though the close was reasonable the weight of evidence was marginally in favor of the move (in my opinion). But, now that I'm being forced to study the actual topic, I'm not so sure. A look through JSTOR, for example, shows 900 plus hits for Tenedos and a mere 40 for Bozcaada. Clearly, scholarly weight is in favor of Tenedos. This article in Historia (2006) for example, says that the island of Tenedos, now Turkish Bozcaada, enjoyed more fame in antiquity than it does today. A minor island today versus historical prominence - seems to me that the historical side may be the winner. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand so no comments on this will be responded to!--regentspark (comment) 16:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books result itself can't be a reliable source as it's not a source to begin with. It's merely a count of sources but one that doesn't tell us if they're reliable, non-repeating, in-context etc. Even if we take that to be true it's only one factor against many (news agencies, maps, encyclopedias, travel guides, official documents, etc.). It's basically 1 factor against 5+. Scholarly weight is of course is in favor of Tenedos when it's about the ancient history of the island. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is not a history article. Same as Istalbul. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding what google books results mean. When you run a search on google books, you get a long list of books that contain the search term (try it). Many of those qualify as reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case. I did point out these before in this discussion though. I don't know how you'd reach such a conclusion that I'm misunderstanding what Google Books results mean. I've linked you to relevant Wikipedia guidelines: WP:GOOGLETEST. It specifically talks about an example where an 18,000 hit turns 161 actual results. Do you seriously believe that Constantinople has 2,320,000 Google search results and 16,800,000 Google Books search results? Google Books result do not tells us whether any of those results are reliable or not duplicates. Numbers alone means nothing. You can even get different numbers for the same search by trying to look at different pages of the search. That said, in this case there is an additional level; context. Can you give me a number on how many of them being books about the ancient history of the island? You can't. Google Books results may produce reliable results. This doesn't make the hit count reliable in any way. In such cases, it's merely safe to use it as a supporting factor or a way to see if a certain name or phrase is not a rarity. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "It's merely a count of sources" (emphasis mine). Just pointing out that that is not the case. Apologies if you did not mean what you said. --regentspark (comment) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a merely a count of sources if the result number is used as a factor. Using Google Books search as a means to get to reliable sources is different from using Google Books search count. I believe you're confusing the two. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-

Major published tourist guides such Lonely Planet and atlases are of course reliable sources, like any other professionally published books, depending on what exactly they are used for - I wouldn't necessarily recommend guidebook history round-ups for the details of a place's history, especially when we have far better places to look for that sort of thing, but along with atlases they are very much going to be a reasonable and properly checked record of what things are commonly called, especially if they all match up, as they do in this case. We're not talking about pamphlets and maps being handed out on the tour bus here (although they also would offer some indication at least about common use). As for your point 2, yes some people are going to search or click through from the old name, looking for and/or expecting to find out something about the place in history. But I'm not aware it's policy or practice to privilege historical nomenclature if we can show that's the basis on which a greater number of people are coming to a page about a place that exists here and now under a different name (even if it were possible to prove that somehow). In any event that's what a redirect, an opening sentence that says ".. historically known as Tenedos" and the sections about the island's history (where we use that historical name) are all for. Unless we can justify a whole fork/sub-article called, say, "Tenedos in classical mythology", I don't see where that's going to take anyone. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the guide book issue (let's agree to disagree about their reliability for the moment), let's take a look a the classical vs. modern issue. The intent of the article naming policy is to use a title that a reader will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. If readers generally visit wikipedia with the classical place in mind then, other things being equal, we should prefer the classical title. That's the policy. In the case of Tenedos/Bozcaada, it is up to the editors supporting the move that there is a reasonable case to be made that readers visit Wikipedia to find out about the modern Bozcaada and not the classical Tenedos (that, in addition to demonstrating that modern sources use Bozcaada). --regentspark (comment) 18:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes no sense - you're talking about what content people might be expecting to find in the article, not what the title should be. And the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that if that's what people are indeed mostly after, the whole article should be tipped on its head and focus and lead off with the classical history of the island, and then eventually briefly mention "and it's still around today, under a different name". The basic principle of any up-to-date encyclopedia is that it identifies and describes things by their modern name and status, and includes details - often quite a lot of detail - about their past and backstory. We note the "historically known as XX" and the interest in that aspect, as I said, by including that in the first sentence, not by retaining the archaic name for the actual title of the entry. N-HH talk/edits 18:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just quoting the policy to you. Look it up. The idea is that if the vast majority of readers expect to be taken to Tenedos, they shouldn't, ceteris paribus, be presented with Bozcaada. It seems reasonable to me, and I actually think it is one of our stronger policies, but if you think otherwise you should take it up on WT:AT. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If users who type in Tenedos are actually looking for an article about ancient history or mythology, we can please them more by creating a seperate article about is - as suggested before. For modern use of the name, I think the evidence presented so far indicates Bozcaada so it would better be the title according to naturalness principle. Filanca (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, I think, is a sensible suggestion (assuming the modern/classical dichotomy is an issue). --regentspark (comment) 20:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments elsewhere, I'm not sure about the split for various reasons. It seems to be an unnecessary cop-out. As WP:AT, I know what it says about taking readers where they expect to go, which is eminently sensible of course. But as I said, that has nothing to do with the simple choice of modern vs former name for the title. Having the title at Bozcaada would not mean people were being taken to the "wrong" place. The content would be exactly the same either way and all the history as Tenedos would still be there, in the lead and onwards - but it would just be under the modern name, per our titling rules on places at WP:NCGN (there's even a section called "Use modern name" - look it up). I don't feel at all deceived if I type in Bombay and end up at the page we have at Mumbai. N-HH talk/edits 08:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-

Chrisrus, is there any other way for me to read this comment, the claim that I did not to a thorough investigation, as anything other than a lack of good faith and a personal attack on my integrity? If there is, please tell me. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "You didn't conduct a thorough investigation" may be a "personal attack" in a very broad sense, but I don't think it's the kind of "personal attack" that WP:NPA talks about any more than the good and necessary "you did that wrong" kinds of statements that I assume you yourself make on a regular basis.

But yes, I am here on this page along with others to engage in criticism of the job you did in this case on that day; in fact this entire page exists because I and others thought you did a demonstrably bad job understanding this situation and figuing out what should be done and we are here to talk about that. So it's natural for you to feel under attack, I suppose. I would. But maybe it's time to end this and close this page if now we can see where the deeper problem lies and not talk about you and your close anymore. But more on that below.

But no, this above post from me you are referring to was not a criticism of you or your close. It was me finding out how administrators in general, I am told, routinely deal with this type of thing. That was me learning that you all are not expected to do thorough investigations, as you were trying to tell me earlier. Apparently this is just the way these things are done. You come in, scan for consensus, and, if none is apparent, without having done something like this where you ask questions like "let me make sure I understand, you're saying X right? Ok, and your reply is Y, correct? Ok, so that brings me to this conclusion, how's my logic?" and so on, (by the way I'm still hoping to hear your critique of my investigation; how'd I do, Dr. Mies? Did I do a good job? Can you pinpoint where I went wrong? How did I arrive at a conclusion so different from yours?), then having found no obvious consensus you all just then close it and leave Tenedos to run through the same cycle again and again until the heat death of the universe I suppose because there will likely never be that kind of consensus there that you all seem to be looking for.

So where are the instructions for how move requests are supposed to be dealt with by administrators? Let's take a look at that. That seems like the logical place to go next. Point the way, please.

How about Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Does_the_Tenedos.FBozcaada_contention_indicate_a_flaw_in_policy.3F? What do you all think of that? If we could get that done, that should fix the Tenedos problem once and for all, wouldn't it?

Or how about a separate page called "WP:What to do when the name of a place changes"? Because, as you know, it happens sometimes, and will again, so we should be prepared with a reasonable plan that doesn't involve waiting until the Google Books count catches up with the decades old unanimous consensus of all the latest major English-language maps. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but since I never answered your question about your own investigation I figured you'd realize I have no interest in answering it, nor am I interested in clicking on links to YouTube videos (I mistakenly clicked on one before thinking it led to a diff). This business of the "thorough investigation", by which you mean that the admin (in this case me) goes out and researches for themselves what the correct answer is--if that was our job we wouldn't have discussion about a move request. You'd request a move, an admin would to a thorough investigation, and then move it or not. That's a complete bypass of the consensus model. No, an admin weighs the arguments and sees if a consensus exists and, if so, acts on that consensus accordingly. No more, no less. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close: The closing admin clearly followed the guidelines. It's really sad to recycle again and again the same arguments or even worse to revert the final decision of the uninvolved closing admin (as it happened in this case).Alexikoua (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close: Although I supported the move, the close was consistent with WP:RMCI. This is a highly contentious, culturally charged topic, that is unlikely to be resolved to the equal satisfaction of both sides. As with previous RMs on the topic, no real consensus emerged to make the move and the closer judged that lack of consensus accurately. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:RMCI doesn't say "have a look at the votes and if enough people object to any change, for whatever reason, leave it as it is". As well as instructing the closer to avoid apparent conflicts of interest and to read the debate thoroughly (see points above) it also explicitly says the following:

• "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions ... Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere."

WP:CONSENSUS says the following:

• "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms [policies and guidelines]".

These are there, presumably, to avoid the constant-veto-by-non-argument-from-one-or-two-contributors at any individual discussion. As the recent discussion at TITLE noted, our policy and guidelines call for common and modern names to be used, judged by reference to reliable sources discussing the place in a modern context. They also caution against mere Google results, in books as well as general search. However, we have allowed such a veto to take effect here. This pandering to local "consensus" - or rather obstructionist veto - in order to block any improvement or updating is one reason, as people say, why Wikipedia is often such a laughing stock. N-HH talk/edits 14:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: also, there's no cultural charge or real-world contention here for me. There's just a "WTF?" disconnect when I discovered WP uses the archaic name for an Aegean island when every other modern English-language source has long since moved on. It's bizarre - and, like I say, is yet another example of this place looking stupid and inaccurate, yet one that is impossible to put right. All the time that's been spent and we still haven't resolved it. What a joke. N-HH talk/edits 14:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment

We badly need an understanding of etiquette and proper process, analogous to that on WP:DRV, mandating that this kind of review discussion must not be misappropriated for re-debating the merits of the original case. This debate has been swamped by the same few people quarreling whose quarrels also fill the original debate, and it has become utterly unreadable. How many people have commented here so far who were not already a party to the original debate? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Perhaps we could consider dividing a move review into separate sections, one where participants can express their opinions, and another where neutral observers can do so. Or, perhaps (hate the thought) add some clerical oversight to manage the process. Most move reviews I've seen suffer from the same problem (though none as bad as this one). Perhaps we can take this up on the talk page? --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Couldn't we start over? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]