Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 April

2022 April

Queenstown, South Africa

Queenstown, South Africa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Spekkios closed the discussion in good faith by counting the number of users that opposed vs. supported the move request but I do not believe that WP:RMCLOSE was followed as well as it could have been. One minor complaint would be the lack of a closing summary but that is not a major issue. These disagreements typically revolve around how much we should weigh regular use by reliable, English language secondary sources vs. ngrams and google search results. While there were more opposes, I believe that properly weighing consensus with applicable policies and guidelines, particularly WP:COMMONNAME would support moving the article to the current official name.

Opposition raised by BilledMammal largely focused on ngrams and google search results. Google's Ngrams only has statistics up to 2019 and does not differentiate use for historical events, organizations, etc. Google as well does not differentiate these results automatically and may include results from Queenstowns in other countries, organizations, etc. I do not believe the search results were adequately controlled for these factors.

Opposition raised by Ale3353 focused on an Encyclopedia Brittanica entry that had not been updated since 2008.

I personally believe that closer examination of sources shows that a significant majority of news agencies have used the current name, Komani, almost exclusively for quite some time. South Africa's largest news outlets, including News24, eNCA, The Herald, Daily Dispatch, The Rep (a newspaper within Komani), SABC News, Algoa FM, and Jacaranda FM have all switched over to the new name almost exclusively as far as I can tell. Desertambition (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) The close is a reasonable summary of consensus with the arguments for the move being weak; one supported on the ground of common name, but cited only individual examples in support, and two supports implicitly conceded that the title was not the common name but supported on grounds of natural disambiguation despite the proposed title being unrelated to common name. I am also not convinced that the nominator has properly considered the arguments against the move; for example, they claim that my opposition is based on ngrams, but a quick read of the discussion will show that neither I nor any other editor raised ngrams as an argument against the move. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, the same logic applies to google search results. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)