Hosta

Northern Illinois Huskies (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Discussion closed prematurely without anyone addressing the issue at hand, which is a challenge to the inaccuracy of the current titles. Evidence was provided that proves the titles are wrong. This was completely ignored. I'd like to see someone defend the deliberate use of the known erroneous title pages. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion: User_talk:DGG#Challenging_flawed_policy

• Endorse close: the use of WP:SNOW was the correct move in this case given that the nominator was the only advocate for the move and that 10 other editors opposed the move with arguments grounded in policy. The initiator of this MR (and the RM) has already requested that an administrator review the close, which they did and agreed with the decision by the closer. Resorting to WP:BLUDGEON is not an effective tactic. The close was so clearly correct that I would normally advocate a speedy close here, but given that the initiator here has cited this as one of their objections in the original close I do not think that in this instance it is the best interest of Wikipedia. Ebonelm (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Based on the move discussion there was no other possible outcome. Reading through the move discussion and other places Anne has posted about this, she wants someone to step in and override the consensus formed at the discussion and the Article titles policy. A requested move is not the place to challenge a "flawed policy" as Anne calls it. ~ GB fan 22:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my initial endorse, I didn't address the one issue Anne raised here. She provided evidence that the current titles are not the Official names while others provided evidence they are the Common names. No evidence was provided that the names are erroneous. ~ GB fan 22:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close this principal of WP:SNOW appears to have been correctly used. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for those who insist on trolling, playing the semantics game, or being deliberately daft: The Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies or Huskies and NOT any other variant. These terms are the ONLY CORRECT ways to refer to the Northern Illinois University athletic teams and referring to them by ANY OTHER term is ERRONEOUS. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, from the link provided above to additional discussion (since it is apparent people are chiming in without reading everything first): In cases where many terms are official/acceptable and correct than "commonname" has a place. It can be argued that in cases where there isn't a policy explicitly naming acceptable terms that "commonname" has a place since a term has not been excluded/deemed as incorrect, therefore it can be inferred that it can be correct. However, in specific cases, such as this one, where there is an EXPLICIT policy detailing what terms are acceptable and limiting acceptable terms to those explicitly named, then "commonname" has no place because at that point "commonname" is WRONG. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire background before knee-jerk commenting. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse rationale of commenters was clear. Good snow close. Trout OP for the move review and for the yelling. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Potts (Doctor Who) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Discussion was closed far prematurely, and in the case of overwhelming evidence against the case given in the close. -- Alex^TW 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Have you discussed this with the closer first? Normally it is best to start with that before bringing the issue here. The discussion appears to have run the full seven days. I would have liked to see a close rational for a contentious debate instead of just stating the outcome. That said the close is clearly within closer discretion. From my reading, the key point of contention in the discussion appears to be if the character from Doctor Who meets long-term significance. The arguments against using WP:CRYSTAL are fairly strong. And yes that link mostly talks about content of articles, but crystal is also typically considered invoked during RM discussions concerning primary topic. Given that an endorse close is reasonable, I could also have seen a no-consensus close as being within discretion. My suggestion would be to reconsider the question of primary topic after the character has been on the show for a bit as long term significance will be much clearer than as there is no deadline. PaleAqua (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it may have been opened seven days ago, the discussion was most clearly not concluded and still ongoing - the most recent comment before it was closed was a mere hour-and-a-half before. A close rationale would have been greatly appreciated, but it was closed with zero explanation and zero conclusion, hence my post at move review. I don't believe that it is a policy, either, that I had to contact the closer; this method is far more favourable, to invite the opinions of multiple editors, not a single one who clearly disagrees with the move, and closed it on their own perogative instead of giving their opinion. Once the current season has concluded on July 1, I have every intent to restart a Requested Move discussion. -- Alex^TW 14:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian Please see step one at WP:IMR which I will also quote here: "Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer." Ebonelm (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I opposed the move rather than close it myself because their was clearly no consensus to move and the whole subject was a mess because the longstanding article at the topic had been moved so that the Doctor Who character could be made the primary topic. There was clearly no consensus to make the character the primary topic, so taking no action at this time was the right call. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above editor voted on the original discussion as opposition, so this is a clear conflict of interest. The reason why there was no consensus was due to the fact that the discussion was still ongoing (as tough as it was, being faced with multiple personal attacks from opposing editors). The almost-dead "longstanding" article at the topic would have had to have been moved anyways; this argument is poor. -- Alex^TW 14:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declared my !vote in opposition to the move here as the move review instructions request, and I am a frequent commenter at MR so this has nothing to do with any agenda on my part: I don't really care about Doctor Who or the musician to be honest. The discussion had lasted its full listing time and relisting or not closing would have been unlikely to clarify the consensus further, which is a valid reason to close. The move of the musician to establish a primary topic for a new article without a requested move is important to note because it muddies the waters as to what actions should be taken in potential closes. The close here was good: establishing a new primary topic without a clear consensus would be inappropriate, and additional listing when a full discussion had taken place was unnecessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there was no clear consensus - and I believe would have been justly closed as such - however it was closed stating there was consensus. That may be not important to some as the outcome is the same, but I can understand the distinction is actually important. Dresken (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: I did not provide a rationale for my decision because I thought is was clear-cut and an obvious conclusion to the discussion. I would have been happy to provide a rationale if I were contacted prior to this move review, but I'm also happy to provide it here. The arguments for moving mainly revolved around number of pageviews and this was not denied by those opposing. However by a majority of approximately 6:4 there was consensus that this new fictional character did not have a valid claim as the primary topic when there are real notable people by this name. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was most clearly not concluded and still ongoing - the most recent comment before you closed it was a mere hour-and-a-half before. Discussions are not concluded through votes or majorities, and there had been multiple threads on the validity (or clear lack thereof) for the argument of fictional characters versus real-world personnel. -- Alex^TW 14:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close: although none of the participants explicitly referred to the policy WP:SUSTAINED or to the statements set out at WP:RECENT this is clearly what those who opposed the move were trying to get across. The move request was clearly premature and while the article may well eventually end up being moved to the proposed title it certainly does not yet meet the second criterion set out at WP:PTOPIC of long term significance. Furthermore, while in this MR User:AlexTheWhovian has argued that the original discussion was not yet finished, this editor was clearly guilty of WP:BLUDGEON in this move request which makes it impossible for discussion to ever really end and so the decision to draw a line in the sand and close was clearly the correct one given that that the WP:RMCI required seven days had passed. Ebonelm (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose close: 4 editors opposed the change and 6 supported. That is not consensus, consensus needs a far larger majority to be a consensus, say 8 for:2 against change to be a consensus or so at least. TedEdwards 17:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. Discussions are closed based on the strength of the arguments. See WP:consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who says the arguments on one side are better the ones on the other side? There are strong arguments on both sides, not just on side, hence no consensus. TedEdwards 19:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "That it's not how consensus works on Wikipedia." - I totally agree yet it appears counting is the method the closer has stated they used to justify their ruling of consensus. I was part of the discussion on the support side - however I support that it was rightly closed - however I believe result should have been "not moved:no consensus" as both sides had valid interpretations of guidelines but on the balance did not agree how it should be used. Dresken (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, although "no consensus" might have been more easily defended. There was definitely not a consensus to move. Beware WP:BLUDGEON, it annoys people, and it doesn't work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

This discussion was not advertised on the two WikiProjects that are directly related to it, nl. WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE. Since the closing editor admits that "However the target of the move was much harder to call", I think their expert input would have been crucial. I am surprised nobody came up with the idea to notify these WikiProjects, as it is customary. I recommend notifying the above mentioned WikiProjects, and open a completely new discussion on the issue of the move. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closing rationale was clear and accurate: there was a consensus for a move, where the move was supposed to land was less clear, so it fell to the closer's discretion to determine the location that would be most in line with the discussion. Re-reading the entirety of the conversation now, the move as closed was clearly the title with at the very least the least objectionable move while possibly being the one with the most support. A good close to a contentious issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per TonyBallioni. Also, It's not necessary to inform the related wikiprojects. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It was a tough call but well reasoned, and well within the closer's purview per WP:RMCI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: a messy and confusing discussion but it was clear that there was consensus that the term 'occupation' was not adequate. Changing to 'annexation' (or at least including the term annexation in the title) was clearly accepted as an improvement by a majority of participants (even if some felt that other titles would have constituted even more of an improvement). The closer selected the best title available given the discussion as is explicitly set out at WP:RMCI. Ebonelm (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reading the close, and the previous RMs, the close was surprising, and the page has been subjected to too many moves already. However, on carefully reading the discussion, I find the close does accurately reflect the discussion, consensus to move somewhere, and that was by far the leading candidate. I suggest a 6 month moratorium on future proposals to rename again. I note some erroneous assertion that annexation necessarily involved military occupation, it is instead a word of very broad application. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sahawiq (سحاوق) is the proper name in the original language ChuChu (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Endorse 2015 RM, and someone get an actual RM started again for the user to try to reverse it when this is closed as a procedural measure so it is advertised. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borough (New York City) (talk||history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

Reasoning against was rather unclear.LakeKayak (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Initial closer comment There seemed to be a clear consensus to oppose the proposed move at the discussion. My rationale behind closing it was clearly based on that opposition. The opposition was backed with appropriate policies and naming conventions which I was satisfied with. The only support was for a different name and the suggested move was opposed by even that editor. By the way, LakeKayak forgot to leave the relevant notices at the talk page and the article page so I have left it there for him.Hope you don't mind. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to comment above Even if we consider that there were some arguments in favour of support, we would end up with a no consensus which means to leave it as it is. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist the closer did a nose count and didn't look at the alternative proposals presented in the RM, for which a rough consensus seemed to have been evolving. Closing as not moved was inappropriate here. A no consensus close would have been more justified, but there was a reasonable chance that relisting would have generated a clear consensus, so that would have been the best option. Failing relist, I'd support an overturn to no consensus, but relist would be my first option. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per TB. I misread the original close (somehow) and saw "no consensus" as the result (which I would have fully endorsed), but I agree that a relist might have resulted in an actual consensus forming. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. No consensus might have been within closer discretion, but as noted above there is a possibly about a consensus forming for an alternate which should be considered and an reopening would allow that chance. PaleAqua (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to relisting. More discussion, as long as people want to discuss something, is usually a good thing, and there is a chance, albeit a small one I think, that further discussion could result in a different outcome. The alternative proposal is certainly an improvement on the original. However, I do think the close was reasonable, and if the objection is only that the closer didn't say "no consensus" rather than "not moved", that is a distinction without a difference, in my opinion. No consensus results in no move, and anyone reading the discussion can fairly easily see for themselves that the reason there was no move was that there was no consensus, and not that everyone agreed a move was a bad idea. Station1 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between a "no consensus" and a "not moved" close. "not move" closes are a finding of consensus and typical have a implied 6-month moratorium on new RM baring new information or exception circumstances, there was been consensuses on default moratoriums in the past. I believe one of the recent MR linked to one, though I remember other earlier discussions with the similar consensuses with, but even before then a de-facto moratorium existed. "no consensus" closes mean that at a new RM or other discussions can be opened immediately afterwards with usual caveats avoiding Wikipedia:Disruptive editing with continuous attempts. That said sometimes a closer will close a discussion with "not moved" when they clearly mean "no consensus" and those closes are often informally treated as really being "no consensus". PaleAqua (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once an article is proposed to be moved, there are only two possible outcomes: Either the article is "moved" or "not moved". Of course, there can be a number of reasons for either outcome, and I agree that it can be helpful for the closer to articulate his or her reasons for moving or not moving, especially when they are not obvious, but there are no magic words that make a difference in the actual outcome. It makes sense to overturn a close if one believes the actual outcome to be incorrect and unsupportable, but to overturn just because the closer didn't use a preferred phrase is a bureaucratic waste of time, in my opinion. As I said, it's obvious the closer's reason for "not moving" was that there was no consensus, whether he used those specific words or not, and no one reading the discussion could reasonably assume otherwise. Station1 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between "no consensus" and "not moved" isn't some figment of the bureaucratic imagination. The effect on the legitimacy of further RMs has already been noted, but in addition to that it's worth pointing out the very basic fact that closures aren't supposed to be executive orders, but summaries of the discussion. A closure has to do justice to the arguments presented and it should faithfully represent the state of the consensus achieved. – Uanfala (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus seemed to me to be edging fairly significantly towards the name Boroughs of New York City, possibly almost to the point of making an uncontroversial move. Randy Kryn 00:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I myself actually have no objection to the alternative proposed name instead of the initial proposed one. And that is what the consensus seemed to lead to. By the way, @Yashovardhan Dhanania: I was actually unaware of the required notices on the talk page. Therefore, I don't mind that you instated them and thanks for informing me.LakeKayak (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Although a "no consensus" close is easily justifiable (but probably not so for "not moved"), it does appear that the discussion was ongoing and it could have reached a consensus had it been relisted. – Uanfala (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I have no problem with relisting the RM. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I do the honors, Yashovardhan? George Ho (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah please do George Ho. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]