Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 June

2023 June

Flag of Orlando, Florida (closed)====

Flag of Orlando, Florida – CLOSED: The proper course of action here is to open a multiple article WP:RM requesting the title changes back to previous titles. This allows the community to weigh in on the appropriateness of the current or previous titles. @Vanilla Wizard:, it is incumbent on you to initiate the RM if you disagree with the current titles. The MRV process is reserved to contest what is deemed as an improperly closed RM. Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
==== Flag of Orlando, Florida (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) Without explanation in the form of either an edit summary or a talk page discussion (there was no requested move to overturn), User:Rkt2312 moved the pages and talk pages for the flags of Orlando, Phoenix, Tulsa, and Charlotte to unnecessarily disambiguated titles and recreated their original articles as redirect pages, making it impossible to undo these moves through normal means. To clarify, I am asking for all of these pages to be restored to their shorter "Flag of (City)" titles and for all of the "Flag of (City), (State)" titles to be reverted. Pages affected by this request: Flag of Orlando, Florida back to Flag of Orlando Flag of Phoenix, Arizona back to Flag of Phoenix Flag of Tulsa, Oklahoma back to Flag of Tulsa Flag of Charlotte, North Carolina back to Flag of Charlotte Another editor reached out to User:Rkt2312 nearly two months ago with the same question as me, so I consider that ample time for them to respond before starting a move review. They were met with no response, but the user has continued to actively contribute to the encyclopedia near daily since then, so they just don't seem to be interested in discussing why they performed these unexplained moves. Reading through WP:UNDOMOVE makes it seem like there are no good options here. I don't want to nominate the redirects for deletion or create unnecessary temporary 3rd pages, and I have no idea if either option will preserve a record of original page authorship. I would've brought this up at WP:AN/I, but I am not asking for the user to be penalized and I believe they were acting in good faith, I just don't know of many mechanisms for undoing a move where the previous title has already been overwritten. Hopefully the move review process is the correct avenue for this (I've never done one of these before).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Murder of Maxwell Confait

Murder of Maxwell Confait (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The closer has put too much weight into comments that, effectively, tried to do an end-run around of MOS:GENDERID, which was recently endorsed at RfC and expanded to explicitly include names and deceased people in its application.

There is a simple calculus when it comes to these cases: could the gender identity of the subject be questioned, and do we have reliable sources on what name they preferred? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then we prefer to use that aforementioned name. There is no exception to this rule, and the community has repeatedly shut down any attempts to create exceptions.

There were several users who tried to claim that either MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply in this case — it clearly does — or that "Michelle" was a name only used during Confait's professional work. There are no reliable sources that say this was the case, which makes this sort of argument, fundamentally, original research. Arguments that either show no understanding of the topic matter, or contradict established policy, should be discarded by the closer. Sceptre (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn I surprised myself typing that (well, deleting the endorse and then rewriting as overturn), but I've spent some time trying to figure this one out. MOS:GENDERID has been updated recently and is pretty clear: use the most recent expressed self-identification. In re-reading the discussion after trying to figure out exactly what the policy guideline says, the closer erred by reading too much into things which aren't part of the guideline: It was pointed out by those opposing the move that the person used "Michelle" as part of their work as a sex worker, during which they dressed as a woman, and it was not an identity that was shown to be a self-identification from the person themself. It was also stated that reliable sources, including modern ones, identify them as a transvestite, not a transgender. The former isn't necessarily supported by the discussion, which demonstrates - especially from the neutral voter - that Michelle was the person's preferred name. MOS:GENDERID makes no distinction on the latter. The close should be overturned on that basis alone, but continuing, I don't think there's a single oppose !vote which correctly applied this new guideline, and not because I think this couldn't have been opposed - there's a genuine issue as to what the person's preferred name was - but because they focus on living/dead issues, commonname issues, or identity issues which do not matter the way MOS:GENDERID has currently been written. It's a rule that comes naturally yet, so I expect others might disagree with me, but if you do - read MOS:GENDERID closely, it is not concerned with anything but the person's preferred name. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note from closer : I will not be voting on my own actions, though I would like to add certain necessary information to the statements above. There were two reasons for a No Consensus close; Only one of them has received any criticism as being "OR" or otherwise incorrect.
  The first two paragraphs here are absolutely correct; there are no exceptions to MOS:GENDERID. However, the issue remains that most sources (perhaps due to the era) do not make any reference to the person's self identification. This was referenced in the close as well. Most of the the sources referring to the person as "Michelle" referenced it as a name they were also known by, and not as their identity or their preferred name - including more recent sources as well.
  The argument raised questioning the use of the name as being an identity, and not a name used during the person's line of work, was never challenged as OR prior to the close. However, I admit that I did not read the sources myself and did not attempt to form my own opinion of them - I do think that would have been inappropriate to do so as the closer - while I read through the arguments by the editors, with the assumption that things like an OR claim would be fairly easy to debunk.
  However, even if the filing editor's remarks about those arguments not being true are correct, there remains the matter that RS do not refer to them as "Michelle Confait"; and simply as "Michelle". The addition of the surname is not consistent with the RS that do refer to the person as "Michelle" and not "Maxwell Confait". This argument was raised and remained virtually unchallenged.
  While I understand that this is a topic that the filing editor feels strongly about, having originally moved this page prior, in a closure that was reverted and later closed differently, I do not think that the move request had enough basis in policy to move the page. If other editors wish to question me about any of the arguments I relied on, I would request them to drop me a ping. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  I find the comment of RS not referring to Confait as "Michelle Confait"... weird. If their last name is stated earlier in the source, and it stays the same, why repeat the last name when the first name changes? I would think the default assumption here is that a source referring to them as simply "Michelle" is just a shorter version of saying "Michelle Confait". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (closed)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump – Procedural close. The RM is still open, there is no close to review. Vpab15 (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) It appears the closer was unaware or unwilling to consider the prior RM discussion, nor the dynamic nature of the discussion that seems to have come to a clear and obvious consensus in favor of moving. Attempted to discuss with closer, but they were unwilling to reconsider their determination. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Note - Just going to leave this comment here to notify the reader that the discussion hasn't been closed; This move review was started because the editor did not agree with me relisting the discssion, and they wanted me to close it instead (presumably along the lines they argued for). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Welp, perhaps you can explain better why editors who discussed WP:PAG (like WP:NPOV) and went into some depth on the matter of WP:RS didn't give enough justification for their view (as per your relisting comment: Reading the discussion, the support or oppose vote are comprised primarily of opinions, with little basis in WP policy.)? You claim a close otherwise would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE, but in a sense, delaying the close implies to people coming later that the arguments made weren't good enough to you. If you didn't see the policy discussion, then frankly you shouldn't have touched this RM because it's literally been going on for two weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Procedural endorse as the 7-day limit on relists is a soft limit and anyone uninvolved can close that discussion at this moment (hell, I could, but I don't want to). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Speedy close There's no action to be taken here. We can't force someone to close a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

@Vpab15: Not entirely sure what you're on about, but this is a "close", in that, an action was taken on an RM (in this case, it was an unnecessary "relist" that is needlessly drawing a discussion that was at a consensus already out longer than necessary). I'm very sorry that the poorly named "Move review" is apparently not up to the challenge of reviewing an action taken on an RM that doesn't neatly fit into anything other than a binary move/no-move... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, it was not a close since the RM is still open. Move reviews are to "evaluate a contested close", so it clearly doesn't apply here. Vpab15 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As I stated, it was an action on an ending RM. I am contesting that action. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You can't contest a relist. A relist isn't a close. We don't review relists as they are minor, inconsequential administrative actions, and if something gets relisted too much someone else can just close the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is an action that can be ignored. If there's a consensus, someone independent can close it now. There's no point to overturning it because... we're in the exact same situation of waiting for someone independent to close the RM, and comments are still open until it's actually closed. A relist is just a soft extension of the expected time for a close. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Operation Gideon (2020)

Operation Gideon (2020) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

With the discussion occurring for nearly a month, it appeared that consensus was forming in the final days of discussion. However, in the closing statement, the move was described as "no consensus", no mention of why the proposal to include "coup" was included and they said that users "were unable to justify their choice as being better beyond doubt". According to WP:NHC, the role of closing users is to determine the consensus. The closer in their statement never provided a rationale of discounting arguments that, according to WP:NHC, may "flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue", so it was uncertain what they may have had to "doubt". These concerns were brought up on the closer's talk page and they agreed that the current title was problematic and attempted to discuss their decision. Again, they overlooked that the sources described the event as a "coup" and they didn't respond regarding WP:CODENAME. A major concern is the closing user's response about the proposed move's title, "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt", saying "WP:PRECISE doesn't favour either, as both require the year as a qualifier, and with the year, both are unambiguous". WP:PRECISE itself states "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". So their judgement to discard this argument was directly against the WP:TITLE policy. While I appreciate that the user attempted to close such a contentious discussion, they overlooked the arguments, went against policy in their response and most importantly ignored consensus. All of this places their closing decision in doubt.WMrapids (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved), with no prejudice to opening an alternative RM. Several arguments based on policy were put forward, as well as countered those citing policy. The decision was made based on this weight and not the amount of votes. Other issues, such as possible canvassing, were probably considered as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  A third party user dismissed your accusations of canvassing, saying " Overall, I don't think it's enough to entirely void the move request as 'no consensus because of canvassing'" while another user became bothered with your allegations as they were persistently uncivil. To you and the closer, I have to tell you to please focus on the content in these discussion. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

From the same relister: However, a few editors from that discussion were not notified, and several editors not involved in that discussion or previous RMs here were notified., and Overall, I don't think it's enough to entirely void the move request as "no consensus because of canvassing", but it will be considered if I close the move; I can't outright speak for any other closers, but I'd imagine they'd be along the same lines.. The closer also provided further policy rationale in their talk page, so it's probably best to hear it from them.--NoonIcarus (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) the user making the proposal is arguing for WP:CODENAME or WP:PRECISE. Users that favored the current title argued for WP:NPOV, unnecesary WP:SOURCECOUNTING, no WP:PRECISE violations (when the date present) and specially for lack of new evidence to overturn the previous two RM, making this the third RM. In the first RM, the proposed name was the same as in the first RM and closed with no consensus. A second RM was made between the users of the first RM to find a new name by consensus and passed (current title). The supporter of the third RM seems to argue for this third RM without providing new decisive sources ("beyond doubt" as closer writes) or unconsidered guidelines, and claiming consensus based on WP:POLL, under alleged WP:VOTESTACK. The situation seems to be, in the very least, at a standstill (no consensus). --ReyHahn (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, please stop with the accusations. Your edits beside the other user above have been called out in the past. Per WP:CCC, we should recognize that consensus can change. The participating users agreed with the previously mentioned sources describing the event as a "coup attempt" as well as other concerns of WP:CODENAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT, with those supporting the move believing that this was sufficient. WP:CODENAME was definitely not discussed in previous move discussions and it states: "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view). The current title does make the suggestion of supporting the point of view of the planners, which would violate WP:NPOV. Many of those supporting the move (and even the closer) agreed that the codename issue made the current title insupportable. So instead of focusing on past consensus and on the behavior of other users, please focus on the content in these discussions. WMrapids (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse It's honestly probably a correct close for one of the messiest discussions I've ever seen, as there's little consensus on anything in that discussion. It's also clear the walls of text have already spilled over to move review, so I'd kindly ask WMrapids, ReyHahn, and NoonIcarus to take a step back from this discussion and let uninvolved editors take a look now that we're here at move review. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): Clearly a no consensus close for this RM as requested consistent with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI. Apart from the suggested appearance of canvassing in the RM which is always discouraged but tough to prove intent, the behavior of several editors in the RM and this MRV epitomizes IMO the following poor behavior in RMs Repeatedly restating your position every time it is opposed or contradicted does not make it stronger. Your position, regardless of how many times you state it, should stand on its merit and is just one of the many others in the discussion. RM closers are right to strongly discount this repeated badgering in their decisions.Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Endorse - while I disagree with the outcome of the close request - I strongly think the title should be changed - I think closing it was the right call. The discussion was easily the most hostile I've ever been a part of, with multiple users simply not reading each others arguments, multiple baseless accusations of bad faith, and few olive branches offered. If that was my first wikipedia experience I would have left shortly afterwards.

I think everyone involved should stop arguing this move, we're clearly at a standstill on the title, and the article itself needs work. Carlp941 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (involved, relister): There is a lot going on here... it's just such a mess of a discussion, with civility concerns, potential canvassing, and numerous walls of text citing just about every policy you can at a move discussion. With no solid consensus on what the WP:COMMONNAME was (a question I specifically called out in my relist), I don't think there's basis to argue against a no consensus close here by policy. (Also, can we just have a blanket WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL reminder for everyone in this discussion? Carlp's points about the hostility ring quite true to me...) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team (closed)

Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team – Relist. Non-admin, but this MR has been going for 2 weeks. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) Move discussion was closed after 6 days; the closer (ONR) cited the moratorium at Czech Republic as the sole reason for closure. The closer at Czech Republic said that the moratorium was not intended to apply to other articles. On 8 and 10 June, several editors attempted to reach ONR to discuss or reverse the closure [1][2][3]; ONR has not responded. I was involved in the move discussion, in support of the move. This requested move affects multiple pages related to Czech ice hockey. Wracking talk! 19:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn and relist as the reason for closing is not supported by any specific evidence I can find. Relisting doesn't need to be done for long and would give another closer a chance to close this properly and perhaps could even be done speedily? SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Comment I was against the move proposal, so I'm following the discussion and I have to point out that a review has already been requested on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to review a close and although it should have belonged here, two independent users, @Number 57: and @S Marshall:, said: endorse. That's why I'm surprised that it is being discussed here. Maybe they will want to repeat their opinion here. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) This is the correct forum for review, though. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) In force right now is a community-enacted move moratorium preventing changes from Czech Republic to Czechia or vice versa for the time being, and all the arguments in that move moratorium apply to this decision just as much as they do to that one. It would be absolutely oppressive if we required all the participants in the previous discussion to copy/paste their rationales into this one before they could be taken into account! So the closer of this discussion rightly considered all the arguments in that one in their close. Through those two discussions we've devoted plenty of community time and attention to this matter, so this close (a) reflected the community consensus and (b) can't possibly have been premature. Endorse and do not reopen.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) The only users - with one exception - who !voted in the moratorium section of an otherwise well attended discussion were those opposing the move, the closer did not specifically not a moratorium was in place, and the user who closed this move voted in the moratorium section, so the closer here is arguably involved. SportingFlyer T·C 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) I agree, but with more confidence, this makes the closer involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) I'll note that I reached out to User:Mike Cline, the closer of the Talk:Czech Republic RM, who clarified that the moratorium does not extend to any articles beyond that one [4]. 162 etc. (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Mike Cline closed that RfC correctly. But the fact that he rightly closed that RfC doesn't make him Final Arbiter of the Czech Republic/Czechia debate. I think the outcome propagates to this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) He certainly is not a final arbiter - and therefore his closure of the Talk:Czech Republic RM should not be used as justification for a speedy close of a completely separate discussion at Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team. 162 etc. (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn & relist - RM was shut down 'too early'. The moratorium covers only the Czech Republic page. Best that an uninvolved editor make such closures. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn (BADNAC). This is a wikilawyer quagmire. Czech Republic is move protected with a formally declared moratorium. Does this extend to the low level sports teams? Logically it must, short of compelling good reason to mismatch a country’s sports team country name from the country name, such spillover is GAMING, disruptive, completely disrespecting the underlying reasons for the top level moratorium. But then even the moratorium consensus called says it doesn’t extend. I think that was a bad statement by Mike Cline, but whatever, that makes it a wikilawyer quagmire, controversial, and something no nonadmin (excepting exceptionally experience NACers) should be touching. If it were for me to pronounce judgement, it would be to refer all “Czech” vs “Czechia” questions to an RfC on a dedicated subpage, where the questions can be debated at length without disturbing article talk pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) ... and indeed, where RM's can't get started by obvious socks.  :)—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock? Special:Contributions/78.128.191.21 Obvious troll. We were trolled. Still as advice to User:Old Naval Rooftops, !vote “close due to the moratorium”. There was a level of noise in this direction in the discussion, but if controversial, err in the side of !voting instead of bold closing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) On careful reading Talk:Czech Republic, I discover that User:Old Naval Rooftops was already WP:INVOLVED and thus unqualified to close for that reason also. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Comment: (semi-involved). I will not comment on the closer’s decision in this RM. However, I will clarify my decision and rationale for the move protection for the article: Czech Republic. There was clearly no consensus for a move in the RM discussion and there was some consensus to move protect to allow things to settle. Hotly contested, no consensus discussions rarely, if at all, turn around quickly and usually engender uncivil dialog. The move protection merely puts editors on notice to be patient for a while. Now, as to the RM decision and move protection decision’s applicability to tangential articles, let me be emphatic. Every individual article’s title is decided based on WP:Criteria and WP:Commonname among other applicable aspects of WP:AT. Attributing rationale/decisions in one RM to another tangential RM denies that tangential RM the protections of WP policy and guidelines in WP:AT. Having closed hundreds of RMs over the years, I think it would be slippery slope if editors could merely attribute one RM decision wholesale to tangential articles. Thus, don’t do it.Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, but, this is not “tangential” but hierarchical. And the question is not whether the RM result carries over, but whether the moratorium carries over. Talk:Czech Republic includes a lot of editors discussion the moratorium, but no mention of whether it covers the same question applied to derivative pages. For this reason, at Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team#Requested move 2 June 2023, whether the moratorium applies should have been discussed, not supervoted by an INVOLVED editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse (uninvolved) It makes no sense for the moratorium not to apply to related articles, otherwise it creates space for those pushing for the move to do so elsewhere and then point to other articles being moved. For formulaic article titles like this, it makes no sense for the article title not to match the country title (bar special exceptions like "Chinese Taipei"). Number 57 14:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) I feel like this is an argument for a relisted move discussion, though, not the move review of an involved editor applying their version of consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn and relist per Mike Cline's statement that the moratorium doesn't carry over as the original institutor of the moratorium. As such, the moratorium doesn't carry over, and the closing statement is invalid. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Proton (Swiss company) (closed)

Proton (Swiss company) – Endorsed. – MaterialWorks ping me! 15:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Proton (Swiss company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) It would be more clear if Proton the car company was known as Proton_(Automaker), or even Proton Holdings, since locally in Malaysia it is known by its initials PHB. Proton Holdings is only known in Malaysia, whereas Proton is global. Although it probably makes sense for Proton_(company) to redirect to PHB on Malaysian Wikipedia, Proton is the better known brand globally, so Proton_(company) should point to Proton for English-speaking audiences. The confusion we are trying to fix on Wikipedia is that the Proton Mail page is being accessed and interacted with as the Proton company page, which has led to confusing or duplicated information. Looking at the Pageview analysis for Proton Mail, you can see that Proton Mail (Proton’s flagship product) is more actively searched than Proton Holdings and has the greater user interest. It may be the case that many users landing on the Proton Mail page should instead be landing on Proton’s company page. As for Proton_(Swiss company), while it is true that Proton is headquartered in Switzerland, 99% of people who use Proton services are not Swiss and probably are not even aware that Proton is a Swiss company. Octazooka (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse (uninvolved.) No evidence of a primary topic or a PDAB here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse There was clear consensus for the page move to its current title. SportingFlyer T·C 03:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Albert von Sachsen (closed)

Albert von Sachsen – Withdrawn. DrKay (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Albert von Sachsen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer) A ridiculously incompetent move that has left Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012) redirecting to Albert of Saxony. There are obviously too many men called Albert of Saxony for the one born in 1934 to form the primary topic, and google searches prove that he isn't[5]. Even the proposer of the move acknowledged that this was the case when it was raised in the move discussion[6]. The closer chose to ignore this and instead imposed an egregious supervote against a 2:1 majority against the general principle of the multimove. One of the five supports for the general principle did not support this particular move[7] ('Albert here relates to Albert Thurn und Taxis not Albert Meissen), and two of the remaining four acknowledged that "we can move it back with an individual request"[8] and "exceptions can ... be resolved on relevant page"[9], meaning only two out of sixteen participants in the discussion supported the move. DrKay (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse – WP:NPOV is a fundamental policy of the encyclopedia, and as such, cannot be overridden by local consensus. By their very nature, titles in pretence are WP:POVTITLE; referring to someone as the Queen, Prince, or Archduke of Sheba leigitimises their claim to the title. The argument that, say, a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany whose passport says "Albert von Sachsen" is actually the holder of an aristocratic title that was made defunct in the 1500s is a WP:FRINGE theory, and Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. It isn't a "harmless" fringe theory either; the fascist coup attempt last year had central to its players the belief that the abolition of the aristocracy was illegitimate. In this context, there is a very high bar to clear before we can consider using a non-neutral title – as WP:POVTITLE says, evidence that is is the common name in a "significant majority" of sources – and the onus is on those wishing to use the non-neutral title to clear it. In the German ex-nobility RMs I've closed, even the lower bar that there is no neutral commonly-used name has not been cleared to an adequate level of satisfaction. Without a change to the substance of WP:NPOV, it doesn't matter if there were sixteen or a hundred and sixty people opposed to the move; if the opposition to the move is contradicts one of the five pillars in such a way, the arguments can be discarded as having zero weight. Sceptre (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse close in general (involved). In light of the NPOV and FRINGE points raised in the discussion, which were not sufficiently addressed by opposers, there is reasonable latitude for disregarding a numerical majority. Coupled with the fact that the princely titles were not demonstrated to go above and beyond COMMONNAME usage, I think the closure was apt. The issues with any individual moves can be addressed on their talk pages. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved) this and the other articles. So I wasn’t involved in this discussion but have been involved in many like it in the past, but the closure seems to ride rough shot over the idea of consensus, discussion and sourcing. The initial proposal seems pretty weak and flimsy to start with in my humble opinion and is based around WP:OR rather than producing any sources in support of the proposed titles apart from, “it’s what the German Wikipedia calls them”. The proposed titles are not even the legal names and the majority of participants seemed unconvinced by the proposers argument. It’s actually well-established over hundreds of years for deposed royals to be called by titles in reliable sources. The initial proposal and closure seems to be opinion based rather than source based to the detriment of Wikipedia. For example Friedrich Wilhelm Prinz von Hohenzollern (which I have moved) is literally not even something he was known as, can someone even present a source for it or are people allowed to just make up stuff on Wikipedia now? Is WP:VERIFY not a thing anymore? If people actually looked into it you would see he was known (in Germany) as Fürst von Hohenzollern after the death of his father, and that’s ignoring what he is called in English reliable sources which is what we should be interested in primarily. Take “Franz von Bayern” we apparently aren’t going to include Herzog (Duke) even though the President of Germany called him “Herzog Franz” and “Königliche Hoheit”, yet apparently this sort of thing is “Fringe” and has “Zero Weight”. Its very easy to disprove these claims as absurd and uninformed. I agree with JoelleJay that issues should be discussed on the individual talk pages as should have been the case with the moves in the first place, rather than this battering ram approach. So the all the moves should be reverted and then the people who have issue with the old article names can propose these new titles, but with the proviso they are actually evidence based proposals not opinion based. - Renamed user 189543756 (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn (involved). The absolute epitome of a supervote. WP:COMMONNAME cannot possibly be overridden by someone's opinion on whether a title is legitimate or not. The only thing that matters is what the individual is commonly called in reliable sources. Holding views clearly laid out above, Sceptre should have participated in the discussion rather than closed it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) We absolutelyt cannot give undue weight to fringe points of view; not in article text, and not in article titles. Several people have brought up concerns that referring to these people by their titles in pretense gives undue weight to a tiny neo-fascist movement, and those concerns were not adequately – or even inadequately – addressed in the discussion. And whilst generally policies don't have precedence over each other, NPOV is special as one of the five pillars of the encyclopedia. We don't use non-neutral titles unless "a significant majority of sources" use them, and there was not even an indication in the discussion this bar was met. Sceptre (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse In short, the dispute is that we were moving titles away from their common name. WP:NCROY says do not use unofficial titles unless they are what a "majority of reliable sources use" and was not disputed as policy. NCROY also seems to put the burden on those wanting to keep articles under the name of their unused title. The opposers all cited WP:COMMONNAME for not moving these. However, the opposing !votes only asserted that these articles were already at their common English title, and the evidence doesn't support that for at least a handful of these articles! Therefore everyone listed by D1551D3N7 apart from Friedrich Wilhelm was correctly moved, and while the remainder were not specifically discussed, I don't think they were incorrectly moved because there's no evidence of the English common name, and in some instances there may be no evidence if there are no English-language sources. I typed that out and then re-read the close, and while I can see being frustrated if I had !voted oppose, the conclusion I came to is basically how Sceptre closed it. I would not have moved Friedrich Wilhelm, though, and any of the undiscussed pages could be moved back if there's clear evidence they were at the WP:COMMONNAME following additional discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Since one of the articles in the multimove has already been moved to a different title without fuss or complaint, I have moved this article to a proper place. DrKay (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Poop

Poop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I'm asking for this discussion to be relisted for another week in order to get a clearer consensus and to undo a supervote. This was a very close and ongoing discussion which should either have been relisted or closed as a no consensus. The closer appears to have inserted their own preference into the close along with placing too much faith in the argument that there has "never been a consensus that there was no primary topic" by mis-interpreting the last move discussion, considering the page has been a disambiguation page for 21 years, and even appears to have been originally created as a disambiguation page back in 2002, and refused to vacate their close and !vote when asked on the grounds that they had explained themselves. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Endorse as closer. I'm just gonna post what I initially wrote on my talk page after @SportingFlyer very politely informed me that they had an issue with the close.

Thanks for reaching out!

My process looking at the move was analyzing the arguments, one by one, and seeing whether there was a consensus for those arguments that was backed in policy.

1. "Nothing has changed, so don't move" was quickly answered by the very next commenter, who pointed out that there has never been a consensus for the status quo

2. "Wikinav data is compelling" - no response given other than your "I'm actually surprised how low the click-thru numbers are for the 'primary' topic" which, while true, only mitigates the argument and does not refute it. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"; 59% is less than some other primary topics to be sure, but it's certainly high enough to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

3. "No primary topic between the act and the product vis a vis educational significance" - highly compelling argument against the move that was never directly refuted

4. "People looking for the act should be typing in 'pooping', like in these other articles" - highly significant answer to the previous argument, which was also never refuted.

Ultimately I was convinced of the existence of a policy-based rough consensus to move by the fact that the wikinav data on its face satisfies the first PRIMARYTOPIC criterion (and was never argued not to satisfy it), and that the dispute regarding the second criterion, while valid, was answered to the satisfaction of many by the distinction between the gerund and the bare infinitive, as consistent with other articles and topics on Wikipedia.

I hope that explanation is to your satisfaction.

Red Slash 14:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion - that the wikinav data on its face satisfies the PRIMARYTOPIC criterion - is a crystal clear reason to overturn this, as that is a !vote, not a summary of a close consensus, especially given that was specifically discussed and rejected by a couple participants. SportingFlyer T·C 14:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

... PRIMARYTOPIC reads "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". If someone says "59% isn't enough for it", then me saying "actually it is" isn't a vote; it's math. 59% is much more likely than any other single topic (second place was what, 20% or so?) AND more likely than all other topics combined.

That's not "voting". That's literally just me noticing that 59 > 50, so therefore I can accept the arguments who say "it's primary topic by pageviews" and discard any that say "it's not viewed enough to be primary topic by pageviews". Not only was this not a vote, there wasn't any subjectivity at all in it. It's literally just grade-school arithmetic. It's so basic that the nominator didn't even bother saying it explicitly in the nomination, because assuming that all of us passed 3rd grade, we should all be able to innately surmise that 59 > 50. If that makes you call it a supervote, man, I've got nothing else to say. Red Slash 19:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(I should, of course, add that there was subjectivity in the "poop" vs "pooping" debate. I should also add that I am very sure that the phrase "subjectivity in the poop" has never once been written before, ever. All move closures--all editing on Wikipedia, in fact--involves subjectivity, analysis, etc. I do not mean to prop myself as an emblem of perfect objectivity; such a standard is literally impossible, in fact, unless you want all move closures to be simply "Well, a discussion was had.") Red Slash 19:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't make an argument that the concerns of those opposing were ignored better than your response right there. With that, I'll excuse myself from this specific discussion... SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved). "Nothing has changed" comments have little weight, because what objectively has changed is that the move proposal is worded differently, using more detailed argumentation, while making relevant references to policy, which (new elements in the) argumentation needed to be responded to. To the effect that it was responded to as opposed to being ignored, most participants were convinced by said argumentation, leading to a rough consensus.—Alalch E. 22:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral but oppose relisting. Per WP:RELIST, If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. There were 11 participants, so a relist is unlikely to accomplish anything. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  @ClydeFranklin: Why on Earth shouldn't we relist? The closer should have done this immediately when the close was challenged, it's really the norm in close discussions where there hasn't been a relist yet. Relists are incredibly cheap and in a contentious discussion like this, it's far more likely to leave participants satisfied if the thing has run for an extra period and people who missed it the first time come to either reinforce the consensus or demonstrate more clearly that there isn't one. I for one would like to dicuss this issue some more.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Courtesy relist. This was a very close (by raw !vote count, without any obvious discardable votes) discussion of a long-standing topic. An extra week wouldn't harm things. If nobody else votes during that period, original closer should feel free to re-close. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Relist – I agree with SnowFire here. With a !vote within 30 minutes of the close, and steady voting throughout the discussion, I don't think it was necessarily safe to say that the discussion was over, and it was close enough where I think the consensus was still developing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Relist (Uninvolved) - I don't think much will change, but I see less harm resulting from a relist than from an endorsement. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeopardy (BBC TV series)

Jeopardy (BBC TV series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The "BBC TV series" disambiguation tag is explicitly discouraged at WP:NCTV. That guideline states that "disambiguation using television network identification is deprecated." This was noted by several commenters in the discussion. Although it seems clear that there was a consensus to move away from the previous title Jeopardy (TV series), it does not appear that an exception to the guideline is warranted here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Consensus warranted a move. The network deprecation rule isn't a hard no and may even apply in this instance, and picking a different option would have required a supervote on behalf of the closer, even though alternative options were discussed. I think an entirely new move request may be warranted, but I don't see the point in overturning the move or relisting the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Reading the other !votes, I'm perfectly happy with an endorse and relist option. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose correctly. <uninvolved> On the closer's talk page he said, "I cannot close a request against the consensus." That is exactly what the closer did – he closed the request against the community consensus that shaped the naming convention guideline, WP:NCTV. It does not matter how strong the local consensus is, the single !vote's argument that cited the naming convention carries by far the most weight. Either the country or the year or both can be used; however, use of the network was deprecated by community consensus. While IAR was cited by an IP editor, no one in the discussion gave any good reason to ignore the community consensus that has culminated in the guideline. The closure should be overturned and reclosed correctly, probably in accord with WP:OTHEROPTIONS. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. (uninvolved) On the one hand, the closer was correct in identifying a consensus to move away from the title Jeopardy (TV series). However, the WP:NCTV argument was a guideline-based argument that was never challenged, significantly damaging the case for Jeopardy (BBC TV series); furthermore, other possible DABs received meaningful support in the discussion, suggesting that alternate titles could be selected without a supervote. Given this confluence of factors, I believe moving to "Jeopardy (2002 TV series)" would have been the best reflection of the discussion's consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse but with no prejudice to opening a new RM. It's very common for an article title to "violate" one guideline, but generally in the service of complying with other guidelines: sometimes there is no perfect option. That's okay, they're guidelines, not inflexible scriptures. It's fine that disambiguation-by-network is not preferred, but the new title is better than the old situation, as both the consensus of the discussion and the closer found. If there's a better suggestion, just open a new RM? SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) There was a clear consensus for moving the title, but none for what title should be picked. Per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, which was clearly not done, as the new title goes against WP:NCTV. The most appropriate title, given the discussion, would probably be "Jeopardy (2002 TV series)", though relisting to get a clearer consensus would also a good decision. – MaterialWorks 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) There was a clear consensus to disambiguate somehow, but nobody explicitly expressed a preference of (BBC TV series) over other methods and several people opposed, so there can't be consensus to go to that title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Relist. Overturn. There was consensus to additionally disambiguate, but there was no consensus that it should be done in the specifically proposed way. Important information was mentioned late in the discussion and was not discussed enough. Earlier commenters appear to have been unaware of the convention that deprecates this form of disambiguation. When considering overturning and applying WP:OTHEROPTIONS, there was not enough consensus for any of the other options such as for adding "British", which was mentioned. If not relisting, start a new RM. /switched to overturn/ —Alalch E. 14:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse but no prejudice against a further RM to clarify the consensus. - there's nothing wrong with the close - as the closer notes, the consensus was roughly for the proposed title. Naming conventions are far from set in stone, and as a reader I would find it vastly more clear to see this listed as a BBC series than a 2002 series. People aren't that likely to know what year something started. It was also suggested that British TV series might work, that's definitely something worth exploring more, but in a fresh RM, not by relitigating this one, which was principally about the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. User:Gonnym 09:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) introduced a critical new point that was not ok to be simply ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Soft endorse (involved) As the person who originally proposed the move, I was originally going to pick (2002 TV series) as a disambiguator, but then I saw that the page was already at (BBC TV series) in the past, so I opted for what may be considered the previous stable title. I could have left the proposed target as a question mark, but I wanted to ensure something would happen if the decision closed as "no consensus" since I had not (and still have not) seen anything saying that the principles of WP:NCRET (in which redirects for discussion discussions are closed as "no consensus" but action is taken since the status quo is unsatisfactory) apply to RMs. Because I wanted discussion on the disambiguator to use, I would vote to relist but not overturn, mainly because we cannot move back to Jeopardy (TV series), but if we do that, we might as well start a new RM. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Brainulator9: WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE (part of WP:RMCI) follows the principles of WP:NCRET. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I ended up seeing WP:NOGOODOPTIONS after the fact. Oh, well. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn (involved). I find it very troubling that a closer would ignore an important guideline argument (seemingly the only guideline argument) without relisting, and it's not like this RM was left open too long or even relisted once. This is just a bad close, regardless of what name it ended up with. As I said there, there are a few guideline supported options to chose from before we go for the IAR one. Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)