Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 June
Flag of Orlando, Florida (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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:
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 (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- @Mike Cline, I accept the opinions given by the participants here and I agree to rectify the close to align with the suggestion here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- The change suggested has been implemented. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks: Mike Cline (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- The change suggested has been implemented. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
@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)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Operation Gideon (2020) (closed)
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
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)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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 above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Albert von Sachsen (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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)
- 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)
- 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) (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |