Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 April: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:57, 12 April 2024

< 2024 March	Move review archives	2024 May >

2024 April

Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications

There were three people involved in the discussion. One person initally opposed the move but later changed their mind and supported. The other two people continued opposing it, of which one never replied to my comment. They stated their opinion for a title, based on incorrect reasoning which is not in line with the relevant Wikipedia policy. My point is: the common name of the subject is its abbreviation and the abbreviation is primarily used for this subject. I have proven this with various different shops and manufacturers as examples, and in discussion with the closer also Google Ngram and book titles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Unfortunately there was clearly no consensus to move, the examples were not convincing to those who participated in the discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the dates of the comments in this discussion. I provided the examples to the user YorkshireExpat, who agreed with me in the end. The last comment by an opposing user was 06:05, April 3rd. Most of the examples in the top discussions are from after that moment, so it is not unreasonable to assume the other users haven't seen them. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's a reason to overturn a lack of consensus, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Start an RM at some point in the future by including all or most of those arguments in the nominating statement.—Alalch E. 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make much sense. You seem to think that the arguments hold merit, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY (WP:SNOW). Then why not reopen? Then I don't have to wait months and write everything again. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please let me try to show how sensible it is. This RM closure was a no-consensus decision. The longer one waits, the more likely one will build stronger arguments and successfully rename the article. If this RM were to be reopened, the liklihood is that it would still end in no consensus, so it would be better to wait and strengthen your rationale. There have been a few exceptions to this over the years, but not many. Sincerely hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the following about no-consensus is not true in this case:

> This may be because a discussion has fractured into several possible titles and none seem especially suitable, or simply because equally strong arguments and appeals to Wikipedia policy and outside sources were found on both sides

The policies cited by users opposing the move were either irrelevant (MOS:JARGON) or they cited a policy that actually supported my argument (MOS:ACROTITLE and WP:ARTSINGLE). PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. < uninvolved > Good, reasonable decision. Again, editor PhotographyEdits, wait a few months and try again if you still think a title change is necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endore (uninvolved). The closer, BilledMammal, was correct to point out the sources cited in the RM (all apparently product listings) are unreliable. The information provided on the closer's talk page may be reliable, but needs to be presented at a future RM. (PS, I've gone ahead and informed BilledMammal about this discussion since the user who began it did not.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Chavismo

Reading Beans may have been unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: NoonIcarus, a user recently topic banned for POV pushing, who has been engaged in some page-move wars and who has forced their own titling on the project proposed a move only three months after their past proposal was opposed. As the previous discussion laid out, "Opposition to Chavismo" is actually less precise because there is both "Chavismo" and "Madurismo". Making the comparison to Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia and the other categories are a false equivalencies since the opposition has spanned over two presidencies and has not been against just one individual. The Venezuelan opposition (its common name in the English language) has been opposed to both presidencies.

Overall, the "Opposition to Chavismo" title is inaccurate, "Opposition to Chavismo and Madurismo" is a mouthful and having two different articles would be an unnecessary content fork. The title Venezuelan opposition is more concise, precise and is the common name for the movement that opposes both Chavismo and Madurismo. Also, having an article move proposal on such a controversial topic being closed with no involvement is not recommended. The move discussion should be reopened and relisted. --WMrapids (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen Since no one participated in the move discussion apart from the proposer, and the move is clearly controversial especially given the POV-pushing, we should treat this as a reverted unilateral page move and re-open the discussion to get a better consensus.

SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose to this being reopened but calling it a reverted unilateral page move is uncalled-for; the supposed controversial move was opened for 2 weeks with no one supporting or opposing. Doesn't look so controversial to me. Best, Reading Beans 06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen (uninvolved): Whenever someone requests reopening a recent WP:RMNOMIN closure, the best practice is to reopen. Reopening is a better way to "help in establishing a consensus whether to move or not" (quoting the closer), since move review isn't a place for continuing the move discussion. And in light of Talk:Opposition to Chavismo#Requested move 22 November 2023 (which includes comments that would still appear to apply in opposition to the move even with edits to the article), this is not a good candidate for a WP:RMNOMIN closure as uncontested. (I will also note that the portion of the argument based on consistency with Spanish Wikipedia should have little weight since WP:CONSISTENT is not aimed at inter-language consistency.) SilverLocust 💬 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. < uninvolved > Not unsympathetic toward the nom's well-made points; however, we are here to evaluate only the closure, which was reasonable and in accord with the closing instructions. Also would not be averse to reopening and relisting if MRV consensus deems it so. As it presently stands, though, this was a good close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one way it could have been closed, though, because there was only one participant, who is now topic-banned. The close itself was not the issue, the procedure was the issue... SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a close and agree that I would have reached the same conclusion, then I pretty much endorse. Consensus can change, and when there is no opposition for twice the time it should take to reach a conclusion, then I see it as a change of consensus probably due to complacency on the part of topic-tired editors. Ya snooze, ya lose. In terms of what this review board is here for, that was a good close, reasonable and in line with WP:RMCI. It should be endorsed, and editors who snoozed and now think it's wrong should wait several months and then try to move it back. There was plenty of time to oppose and supply a policy-based argument. In terms of this particular closure, consensus has changed for the present and should be honored. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a move discussion with only one !vote is not "consensus." This is no different procedurally than unilaterally moving the page using the Move tool, even if it is not the fault of the nominator, and then having someone else notice it was moved several weeks ago and reverting. I see absolutely no reason not to reopen this even if the proposer wasn't topic-banned. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've never closed a move request that was attended only by the nom. Over the years I've closed several like that. What makes this request any different? Editors had a full week plus a relisted week and then some. What would reopening accomplish? It might draw attention from those here at MRV, but if it takes two weeks and an MRV to change the consensus found by the closer, then there is something wrong with this picture. And I'm sorry right back to ya because a discussion with only one !vote is a consensus – even a page moved without discussion is a consensus until challenged. But wait! that's not the case is it. This consensus is the result of a formal move request. And now, after two weeks of complacency, one other editor opens an MRV? That may be enough for some, but it is not enough for me. This RM close should stand on its own as viable for now. ymmv. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. An AfD with one participant is soft closed. I don't see why a RM should be treated any differently. And an RM by a user that's now topic banned shouldn't carry any weight at all. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely sorry if my words seem cryptic to you. Like SJ below, and as I said before, I am not against what appears to be the probable outcome and consensus of this review. Perhaps there should be further immediate discussion? The close was good, and yet maybe you and others here are onto something. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few points in reply:

(1) WP:SILENCE for two weeks isn't a stable consensus, just a "presumed" consensus. See, for example, WP:SOFTDELETE. It would be aberrant if that counted as a stable consensus only in RMs (in contrast to content editing, deletion, and bold moves).

(2) If the closer had seen the previous RM with opposition, I would consider it unreasonable to close the move as "uncontested" without the participants in the previous RM having been pinged. (And even if the closer wasn't aware of the previous RM, that would still be a reason to reopen under the second bulletpoint of WP:IMR.)

(3) There is no reason to wait several months to continue a minimally-attended discussion. If that were an actual requirement, it would be all the more reason to reopen this RM. SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Close was good and should be endorsed. This consensus at a formal move request was to move to the proposed article title. The longer editors wait to open a fresh RM, the better their chance of success. Recommended wait time is minimum one year – I cut that in half to six months to give the nom the benefit of the doubt. Good close. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist / Reopen / Allow an immediate fresh RM. Nothing wrong with the close, but the nom has reasonable points that weren’t discussed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen. (Uninvolved, though I closed an earlier RM on this article.) I'm normally a big proponent of WP:RMNOMIN, but in this case, the proposed move almost exactly duplicated an RM that was rejected by consensus just a few months ago. Consensus can change, true, but if nobody but the nominator has commented then I don't think we have enough evidence to determine whether consensus has changed on this topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow immediate renomination. Editors who would have seen the nomination and would find no reason to object (and did not !vote, presumably) under a premise that the rationale, based on the equivalencies drawn, seems fine, were not introduced to the facts properly, because, indeed, the Venezuelan government =/= Chavismo. Calling anyone who opposes the current government as anti-Chavista implies an essentialized notion of the government as embodying Chavismo, which is obviously questionable. It is actually original research. Under these circumstances it can't be said with sufficient certainty that the decision reached was a good decision. RMs exist to provide the community with time and structure to reach a good decision. The process does not exist for the sake of process. The nominating statement in the reviewed RM is probably not conducive to making the best decision. Therefore, instead of reopening, allow an interested editor to start a brand new RM that is not based on questionable equivalencies.—Alalch E. 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the nominator of this review has been blocked indefinitely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::::The policies cited by users opposing the move were either irrelevant ([[MOS:JARGON]]) or they cited a policy that actually supported my argument ([[MOS:ACROTITLE]] and [[WP:ARTSINGLE]]). [[User:PhotographyEdits|PhotographyEdits]] ([[User talk:PhotographyEdits|talk]]) 10:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse.''' <small>< uninvolved ></small> Good, reasonable decision. Again, editor PhotographyEdits, wait a few months and try again if you still think a title change is necessary. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>04:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Endore''' (uninvolved). The closer, BilledMammal, was correct to point out the sources cited in the RM (all apparently product listings) are unreliable. The information provided on the closer's talk page may be reliable, but needs to be presented at a future RM. (PS, I've gone ahead and informed BilledMammal about this discussion since the user who began it did not.) ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 ====[[:Opposition to Chavismo]]====