Wikipedia:Move review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Move review is a process designed to formally discuss and evaluate a contested close of a requested move (RM) discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page.

While the requested move close is under review, any involved editor is free to revert any undiscussed moves of a nominated page without those actions being considered a violation of Wikipedia:No wheel warring.

What this process is not[edit]

This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion. If you have ongoing concerns about a closer, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Move review requests which cast aspersions or otherwise attack other editors may be speedily closed.

Do not request a move review if someone has boldly moved a page and you disagree. Instead, attempt to discuss it with the editor, and if the matter continues to be unresolved, start a formal WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page.

Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion.

Disagreements with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions (WP:RMCI), Titling Policy, Manual of Style and Naming Conventions, or Consensus Norms should be raised at the appropriate corresponding talk page.

Instructions[edit]

Initiating move reviews[edit]

Editors desiring to initiate a move review should follow the steps listed below. In the reason parameter, editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.

Editors initiating a Move Review discussion should be familiar with the closing instructions provided in WP:RMCI.

Steps to list a new review request[edit]

 
1.

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.

2.

Follow this link to this month's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the contested move page, xfd_page with the name of the move discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page move should be reviewed. For example:

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:move review list
|page=
|rm_page= <!--Not needed if the move discussion is on the talk page of the page-->
|rm_section= <!--Name of the section with the move request.-->
|reason=
}}  ~~~~
3.

Inform the closer of the discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Leave notice of the move review in the same section as, but outside of and above the closed original move discussion. Use the following template: {{move review talk|date=30 September 2016}}

5.

Nominations may also attach an {{move review}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

If the current month discussions are not already included in the discussion section below. Add the new log page to the top of the discussions section.

{{Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 September}}
7.

The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion of the move review. However, if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page.

 

Commenting in a move review[edit]

In general, commenters should prefix their comments with either Endorse or Overturn (optionally stating an alternative close) followed by their reasoning. Generally, the rationale should be an analysis of whether the closer properly followed Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, whether it was within administrator discretion and reasonably interpreted consensus in the discussion, while keeping in mind the spirit of Wikipedia policy, precedent and project goal. Commenters should be familiar with WP:RMCI, which sets forth community norms for closers of Requested Move discussions.

If the close is considered premature because of on-going discussion or if significant relevant information was not considered during the discussion, commenters should suggest Relist followed by their rationale.

Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review.

The closer of the Requested Move under discussion should feel free to provide additional rationale as to why they closed the RM in the manner they did and why they believe the close followed the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI.

Remember that Move Review is not an opportunity to rehash, expand upon or first offer your opinion on the proper title of the page in question – move review is not a do-over of the WP:RM discussion but is an opportunity to correct errors in the closing process (in the absence of significant new information). Thus, the action specified should be the editor's analysis of whether the close of the discussion was reasonable or unreasonable based on the debate and applicable policy and guidelines. Providing evidence such as page views, ghits, ngrams, challenging sourcing and naming conventions, etc. to defend a specific title choice is not within the purview of a Move Review. Evidence should be limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the Requested Move discussion.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on Move Review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists to either endorse the close or overturn the close. If that consensus is to Overturn Close, the administrator should take the appropriate actions to revert any title changes resulting from the RM close. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the consensus is to Endorse Close, no further action is required on the article title. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the move review, then in most cases this has the same effect as Endorse Close and no action is required on the article title. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; administrators may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Move review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest MRV log page, if the closing administrator thinks that a different consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Use {{subst:move review top}} and {{subst:move review bottom}} to close such discussions.

Also add a result to the {{move review talk}} template on the talk page where the original discussion took place, e.g. {{move review talk|date=2015 April 24|result=Closure endorsed}}.

Typical move review decision options[edit]

The following set of options represent the typical results of a Move Review decision, although complex Requested Move discussions involving multiple title changes may require a combination of these options based on the specific details of the RM and MRV discussions.

MRV Decision RM Closers Decision Article Title Action at RM Close (By RM Closer) Article Title Action at MRV Close (by MRV closer) Status of RM at MRV Close
1. Endorse Close Not Moved Not Moved No Action Required Closed
2. Endorse Close Move to new title Moved to New Title No Action Required Closed
3. Overturn Close Not Moved Not Moved Option 1: (If RM consensus is unclear or significantly divided) Reopen and relist RM
Option 2: (If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM
Open or Closed as necessary
4. Overturn Close Move to new title Moved to New Title Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate Closed or Open and relisted as appropriate
5. Relist Not Moved Not Moved Reopen and relist RM Open
6. Relist Move to new title Moved to new title Move title to pre-RM title and reopen and relist RM Open
7. Don't Relist Not moved or moved Not Moved or Moved No Action Required Closed

 

Active discussions[edit]

2016 September[edit]

1,000,000,000 (closed)[edit]

2016 August[edit]

Samuel Clark (U.S. politician) (closed)[edit]

Syrian civil war[edit]

Syrian civil war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RM)

There was a consensus reached to capitalize the page to Syrian Civil War in the move discussion some months ago that was not heeded to. It was brought into discussion again with a much more clear consensus to once again capitalize the page, and it was still not heeded to. This after the page was made lower-case without a discussion in the first place at the beginning of the summer. There have been lengthy discussions in the talk page and we are getting no where. 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:59A5:B2E1:C704:73AD (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Overturn (Not moved): The arguments against moving the page were stronger and based in policies and guidelines, this should not be a no consensus result. I do not see arguments supporting Syrian Civil War that overcome the proper name arguments. However, there is a open RM on that page. Assuming that discussion continues this one should be procedurally closed. (Edit other discussion since snow closed.) PaleAqua (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) edited PaleAqua (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    No one from the side that closed the discussion is still discussing it. An argument was made in favor and wasn't considered without any explanation. Every time this has come up, the consensus has been for capitalization and reasonable arguments were made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:43E:DB0C:D766:4F94 (talkcontribs) 16:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    And to be clear I mean to leave at "Syrian civil war". The closing rational of the previous RM Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016 still seems valid. PaleAqua (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn the bad "uncontroversial" page move, by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs), if I read correctly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It is, however, a big mess. Invite the subsequent admins involved in log actions, Fences and windows (talk · contribs), JFG (talk · contribs), Andy M. Wang (talk · contribs), & EdJohnston (talk · contribs), to briefly explain what they did and why, and suggest they consider setting aside a slightly dubious MR close I see at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_June#Syrian_Civil_War_.28closed.29, and make a clear statement superseding all previous decisions. I think what is needed is a statement of the status quo ante, or the first non-stub version, and recommendation of a new RM, whether immediately not before a future date. Although in some senses, this is a trifling technical matter, it also includes the ingredients of a major emotional upset. The Syrian issues are big, the question of a proper name can add emotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I overturned the "uncontroversial" move away from caps by Antony Appleyard, which should not have happened. It was requested by a user who was formally restricted from moving pages without discussion and that included making requests for uncontroversial moves. It was in any case not uncontroversial, as a prior discussion had consensus for caps - allowing the move showed poor judgment. A number of other articles were also affected. The discussion should now focus on what the title should be based on usage in sources, not previous moves and debates. Fences&Windows 09:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, the June 22 close was poor, and this should go to WP:LAME. Fences&Windows 09:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my detailed close of July 3, which I had to defend repeatedly in the face of endless rehashing. Agree with Fences and windows on this dispute deserving an entry in the WP:LAME hall of fame… — JFG talk 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The close at Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016 by JFG (talk · contribs) at 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC) appears to be the most recent and definitive. Is it that that we are being asked to review? I note that it was a line call on a highly contested discussion. An undeclared wp:nac, but by an old Wikipedian who I always thought was an admin.
Does this MR challenge the status of Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Requested_move_27_August_2016, a currently listed discussion? I could argue that it should be closed as too soon following a previous finding of consensus, wait at least six months barring significant new information or arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I have !voted once in an RM here neutral. I have otherwise stayed out of this heated discussion. The MR close I did was my observing the discussion at that MR only, and gauged consensus for relisting. The only slightly IAR unorthodox thing I did was suggest that the RM be opened at the then-capitalized title rather than revert, a decision I made to avoid further move confusion (the page had been moved 3 weeks ago, not a week ago), and some RM regulars like Amakuru and Jenks24 approved. I have no problems if folks want to set that MR aside (though I don't feel is too relevant now, and it's not binding anyway). Consensus can surely change. The result of the relisting was the article being moved to its lowercase form, closed by JFG.

I'm ambivalent about the title at this point. I'm also feeling that one-week RMs are not solving the problem. FYI, this page has been RM'd about a dozen times now. Note that it's been at "Syrian Civil War" for the longest continuous stretch of time from Nov 2013 to May 2016, whereas it's been at its current lowercased form for less than 20 months aggregated by my count.

The current RM on the talk page is irrelevant to the MR listing here and should be procedurally closed or SNOWed. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 07:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Leave at Syrian civil war. This is a mess in so many ways. It is not even clear what is being reviewed, and what "endorse" and "overturn" mean. Having read all the discussions again, I think it is clear that the title should be at Syrian civil war, where it currently is, the more MOS compliant title, noting no consensus so far that it should be anywhere else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Endorse JFG's excellent close of July 3 as the last definitive word, and support a 6-month moratorium on further titling discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That move was made despite obvious lack of consensus and accepted names of wars (and "Syrian Civil War", capitalized or not, is the most widely used name according to the majority of sources) are capitalized per MOS:MILTERMS. Charles Essie (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Strong endorse. This repeated rehashing and WP:FORUMSHOPPING the same issue repeatedly is becoming borderline disruptive now. The article was lower cased per the close summary at Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016, which took the consensus, based on our house style regarding proper names (in particular noting that there is no consistency in whether this is treated as a proper name by reliable sources). Thus lower case is now the stable title. The most recent RM did not come up with any new significant arguments , or indeed demonstrate that the term is "consistently capitalised". Most support arguments were either unsubstantiated, or indeed contained no rationale whatsoever. Thus there was indeed no consensus to overturn the previous move, as correctly noted by the closer.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with the reliable sources arguement is that more and more sources are using "Syrian Civil War".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In addition to that, many of them use neither. They use casual descriptive titles like "Syria war",[9] "Syria's war"[10] or "Syria's civil war".[11][12]
Most importantly, perhaps the most reliable sources would be other encyclopedias and Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Syrian Civil War".[13] Charles Essie (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Britannica is a tertiary source not a secondary source. Wikipedia considers secondary sources to be the most reliable per WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That is not quite correct. Source typing in independent of "reliable". Also, a tertiary source is a special type of secondary source, tertiary sources are a subset of secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be very important, but agreed they are certainly not a trump card. When it comes to titling, however, titling convention is a style choice, and Britannica has some different styling choices, in particular the default use of a disambiguating subtitle, with the subtitle rendered as a parenthetical disambiguator in their search engine output. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. You're probably right I misstated the case. Tertiary sources are valid as secondary sources, and I have also cited Britannica myself in the past. But our style is not their style, and in particular our style prefers lower casing in ambiguous cases, with proper names only being used where almost every source considers it to be one. I suspect quite a few of the civil war articles could do with a similar downcasing, but they'd have to be reviewed one by one.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I still don't get what's so ambiguous though. "Syrian Civil War" (capitalized or not) is the accepted name by Wikipedia and the majority of sources and accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized are capitalized according to MOS:MILTERMS. Charles Essie (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
"Capitalized or not" is the crucial point here. Most sources do not capitalize it, and in fact many sources don't even use exactly this term at all, as already noted, they use variants like "Syria's civil war" or "the civil war in Syria". That means it is not a proper name, but a descriptive name. WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear on this point. Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name, it says in bold text at the beginning of the guideline. This is not a proper name so we should not be capitalizing, as was correctly noted by consensus in the June move.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Plenty of sources do capitalize it though (see above). Can you prove that the majority of sources don't capitalize? Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    The way MOS:CAPS is currently phrased, I don't have to prove that the majority of sources don't capitalize. The wording is words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. "Consistently" means that something close to 100% of sources should capitalize it for it to be a proper name, with only a few outliers, not just a simple majority of sources. That's what we see with American Civil War, but we don't see it with Syrian Civil War.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's an increasingly sizable majority though judging by a Google search. Does it really need to be almost 100%? Charles Essie (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Syrian Civil War (as in the three words strung together) actually is the agreed upon name. Why? Because every time someone has tried to change the name, it has been shut down in favor of this one, and rightfully so. Academic sources have given this war an official name. It should be noted, when most people talk about the Second World War, they say "the war" and expect context to say the rest. Same with the Syrian Civil War. That's the name people use when you ask the title (the exceptions being those who are fighting a seperate war in the same general area or the regime, who don't acknowledge what is happening is civil war). That doesn't mean most of the internet is going to use said name, for the same reasons most people use the term "the war" and you have to know context to understand WHICH war. The internet therefore, as a whole, doesn't make for a good general source since the internet is mostly casual conversation. If a different official name comes up (which I doubt, but let us say it happens for the sake of argument), we can change the name then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:C12B:C18F:2773:948A (talkcontribs) 19:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    Saying it's the correct name because it's the "agreed upon name" is a circular argument. It clearly isn't agreed upon, that's why we're having this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talkcontribs) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If its not agreed upon (even though it in sense that the debate has long been between to different versions of the same title) than doesn't that mean the discussion should be reopened on the talk page? Charles Essie (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Do note that I said "as in the three words strung together" is the agreed upon name. I don't see any serious argument for any other combination of words like "War in Syria" or "The conflict in Syria" or "The Syria War" or some such (and for the record, I do not support any of those examples). As the the current combination of words is agreed upon on the site, and as every time it has been listed, it has won a majority of votes, I really do think the capitalized name should become the accepted one. However, Charles Essie, I don't necessarily think it should be relisted yet again. Otherwise this is likely to just start another round of the same thing where it gets support, someone disagrees and closes it without capitalizing it, and we end up back where we were. And it seems clear from sentiments of others in this review that its getting a bit tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.26.232 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess you're right. It does seem like we might never see the end of this. But this practice of ignoring clear consensus is something that shouldn't be allowed. So instead of relisting, I'll continue driving my argument here until this review is closed, and when it is, I'll accept the result no matter what it is and won't challenge it unless someone else does. Charles Essie (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Capitalization (If it was not clear enough) People seem to ignore WP:COMMONNAME.--Catlemur (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever the outcome here is, at this point you should accept it. This is getting to be too much work over a small issue when there are plenty of areas on Wikipedia that need the energy more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How is the professionally produced Encyclopaedia Britannica (which, by the way, is considered superior in academia to Wikipedia itself) considered less reliable than the hodgepodge of randomness that is the internet? Since when do news organizations, which are these days hard pressed to maintain their own elements of style, overtake an actual encyclopedia? Further, others have made the point that the names should have some form of consistency to articles like WWII, or the Gulf War. Finally, the capitalized name was accepted the longest since the article was first published on the site. The only reason this mess is even happening now was that someone arbitrarily made it lower case. Since then, the move requests have always been majority in favor of capitalization, but because whoever closes these things was not in support of it, they ignored all of that. Since then, if you look at the talk page, it has been in dispute. Moreso than when it was capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:31F2:CBDA:13FF:B74C (talkcontribs) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops. My wrong. I meant we should overturn the non-consensual, strong-handed move to lower case and return to the previous consensus with caps. I hope this is righted now. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It's all good. Charles Essie (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Listen, I'm probably going to sound like a complete idiot here, but what exactly does "Endorse" and "Overturn" mean in move reviews? Charles Essie (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Charles Essie: See Wikipedia:Move review#Typical move review decision options. Since this RM closed "no consensus" (which means not moved on MR terms), "Endorse" means keep title as is, "Relist" means re-opening the RM for further comments, and "Overturn" could mean relisting or possibly moving if it's absolutely clear the closure was opposite consensus. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Overturn could also mean not moving. Normally clarification follows in parenthesis. For example in my !vote above, I went with Overturn (not moved), which means I'm arguing for a reclose with a not moved result as I don't think no consensus was a strong enough result. PaleAqua (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to try to clarify my position. When this page was moved to lowercase in 14 May 2016 it was done so without consensus and not a single move discussion since then had consensus until the one in that was just closed (which was in favor of returning to uppercase). Essentially, I'm challenging the May move and the outcomes of both the June and August discussions. "Syrian Civil War" was last title to have been agreed to through consensus and had been the stable title for nearly three years. Charles Essie (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn - The rationale for lowercase may meet the letter of Wikipedia's rules, but not the spirit. Opposing arguments have been made time and time again, without any serious consideration. Further, every time it is brought to a vote, it goes in favor of capitalization. Ever since the initial move, done without any discussion at all, it has been in flux in the talk page. I do not see why that initial action gets rewarded with a 6-month door slam in the face of those who opposed it, and have given arguments to do so, and have gotten majorities every time it was put for a vote. Yeah sure, the internet doesn't use capitalization. The internet also includes mostly informal discussions, the various news publications all follow different rules, and as I had pointed out earlier, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is not a random source of any kind, has capitalized the name. It follows convention with other wars listed both here and elsewhere and its not as though the name itself is in dispute, so why not make it a proper noun. If a new name becomes "official" later, we change it later, but right now, let it revert to capitalized. With regards to the most recent closure itself, the only argument made against the MR was a defence by JFG for his own rationale earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:6cf9:ffc3:6630:3b4e (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Syrian Civil War (capitalized or not) is the accepted name by Wikipedia. Maybe that will change after the war is over with. We'll change it accordingly. Til then, MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:6cf9:ffc3:6630:3b4e (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Capitalize (Not sure if it means Overturn or not, see other responses that have contradictory viewpoints with "Overturn" attached). MOS:MILTERMS states it should be uppercase, and there is a consensus on the name (Everyone is agreeing the article should be called syrian civil war, there is just a debate on capitalization). The change on 14 May 2016 was without consensus so should the article should be reverted back to capitalization. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I think this should be Overturned and restored to the capitalized version Syrian Civil War. To fully appreciate this current discussion we need to back up to the June 22 RM that was closed as consensus to move to from caps to lower case. The closing decision was well explained, but as SmokeyJoe said above, it was "a line call on a highly contested discussion", and clearly, many have felt it was the wrong decision. In particular, the closer's argument that there was no stable title is debatable - as mentioned in other discussions, caps have been in place since 2013.
The close wasn't brought to move review, but the August 18 RM essentially functions like one, arguing that the previous RM did not really have consensus to move, and should be restored until a clearer consensus for the lower case form emerges. Unfortunately, this put participants in the position of having to agree or disagree with the claim that the previous close was mistaken. Most participants found little else to add, but it's clear that the majority agreed with the nominator. The limited explanations mean that the "no consensus" close was a reasonable one, but still, it's clear that most participants were unhappy with the current status quo. Given how close the June RM was, and the fact that the evidence can be parsed in several ways, this is a legitimate concern.
The dispute is likely to continue regardless of what happens here. However, if the title stays with the lower case title, the debate will remain tied up in the question of whether the last few discussions were faulty or not, rather than focusing on the merits and weaknesses of the two options.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that the June closure was a "line call". It was actually a proper reading of the argument according to WP:CONSENSUS, in particular that the closer should interpret consensus according to valid Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just by vote counting. The line "In the absence of an overwhelming majority spelling in RS, we should follow Wikipedia's house style per MOS:TITLE, MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, viz. in a nutshell Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, hence lowercase" gives the essence of the close, and should be indisputable. I am quite worried by the increasing trend in recent move closes (as we saw at Talk:New York as well), to not weigh the policy merits of the arguments, but simply to decide consensus by who shouts the loudest. I'm not saying voting is unimportant, but it has never been the only thing to consider when performing a close.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A decision that has been quite divisive since it was taken, especially since it originated from an improper change in the first place. Policies are there, yes, but in some cases they do not make sense. And this is one of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:b8a2:6480:cdfe:3469 (talkcontribs)
Amakuru: I don't like to criticize closing decisions by other admins when they're reasonable and well explained, but I think it's fair to call the June 22 RM close a line call. Clearly, reasonable people disagree about what the capitalization policies and guidelines recommend for cases like this, and moreover, the guidelines are inconsistently applied. But I'm more talking about the claim that there was no stable title. I can understand the rationale, but the fact is that the article had been in the same place for 3 years, plus or minus some surreptitious moves. It was a fair judgement call, but coming in a line of other close judgement calls, it hasn't brought us any closer to stability. The August RM, which is ostensibly our immediate concern here, was devoted to whether or not that RM had consensus, and participants (most participants) could fairly argue that it didn't. I think our better bet is to restore the title of the last 3 years as the stable version, and seek a wider remedy in the policy and guideline pages.--Cúchullain t/c 03:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: OK, fair enough, point taken. And yes, a three year title following an RM is clearly a stable one, I can't dispute that. I do stand by my endorse though, because I think the call (even if it was a line call) was the correct one the way the guidelines are currently written, and the close with WP:CONSENSUS seen by the closer in the June debate was absolutely the way WP:RMCI requires them to close it. Maybe, as you say, it is time to revisit the guideline at MOS:CAPS that says "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". That's probably the big issue at the heart of all this, and it seems it does come up time and again, here and elsewher, that there's a body of opinion that the guideline isn't fit for purpose - the bar for determining a proper name is too high. Perhaps a simple majority of capitalizing sources rather than "consistently capitalized" would be a better bar. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to the capitalized version, largely per Cuchullain and others. Let's undo the improper technical move in May and go back to the last consensus version. Calidum ¤ 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    The last consensus version is to not capitalise. Furthermore, if you're going to rake over past RMs, the 2012 consensus to not capitalise was far stronger than the 2013 to recaps it.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The concluding arguement ot the 2012 discussion was "Until the majority of reliable sources capitalise, it should stay non-capitalised." As I have pointed out above there is now a majority. Charles Essie (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The 22 June decision had a majority in favor of capitalization, despite the "final call", and had been under heavy contention ever since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:B8A2:6480:CDFE:3469 (talkcontribs) 2:28, September 14 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Cuchullain. This looks like quite a mess, but I'm especially astonished that a "noncontroversial" move request was approved for this page (I realize that's not the move under review, but it seems to have colored the one that is). --BDD (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    D'oh! That's what I meant, of course. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Essentially, Cúchullain, you argue to "overturn" Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_41#Requested_move_22_June_2016? I previously said of its close "Endorse JFG's excellent close of July 3 as the last definitive word, and support a 6-month moratorium on further titling discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)". You point to Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_42#Requested_move_18_August_2016 as "essentially functions like" a move review? However, it was an RM, it was too soon after the previous close, and it was properly closed as "no consensus". I'd like to agree with you, but can't swing behind your arguments for the reasons I just gave. Perhaps it you could clarify, especially with respect to why JFG's close should be overturned? I could call it all one big "no consensus" as say "Move back to the first non-stub version". That was 2011 Syrian protests, which is most critically a descriptive title that I think supports the lowercase descriptive title "Syrian civil war". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was the one who started the 18 August move discussion. I probably should have done a move review instead but it didn't occur to me. However, my intentions were similar to that of move review. I can't speak for Cúchullain, but the reason I think JFG's close should be overturned is that there was no consensus to return to lowercase in that discussion while my discussion, if anything, had consensus to return to uppercase but was (ironically) closed with a no consensus verdict. Charles Essie (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The whole issue is complicated by the, well, complicated series of discussions. On one level, I'm arguing that the August 18 RM should be overturned - ie, that there was consensus to overturn the previous RM and return to the stable title. This could have been a move review, but either way it makes the argument of one, and I'm not a fan of overlooking people for not jumping through the correct hoops when their arguments and intentions are reasonable and clear (especially considering that move review is a more obscure and less effectual process than RM). In addition to that, I think the close at the June 22 RM was, unfortunately, the wrong one. I do not like challenging other admins' closes when they're as reasonable and well articulated as this one, but I think it was off the mark, and led to additional confusion. In particular, I don't think the policies are as clear cut as that, and I don't agree that there was no stable title when the article had been in the same place for 3 years, minus undiscussed moves. In the end, I think our best bet is to return the article to its stable title and seek further clarity on the guideline level before trying to settle the question again.--Cúchullain t/c 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is an awkward difference of asserted fact, on the subject of existence of a long term stable title, between the procedural nominator and the closer. I don't think the long term stable title should carry much weight, if it got there not through a clear consensus decision, in favour of the first non-stub version. Support for defaulting to a long term stable version invites/requires WP:GAMING to first destabilise the apparently stable. For me, this was the lesson to be found in yogurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think there WP:GAMING involved here. This title was moved to lowercase twice without consensus and then when consensus was reached to return to uppercase it was ingnored (Filibustering the consensus-building process by reverting another editor for minor errors, or sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected. Charles Essie (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines are absolutely clear on this issue. Unless sources capitalise, we should not capitalise I fail to see why people continue calling for an overturn given that the original close was clear on this issue, and WP:CONSENSUS clearly requires closers to consider policy based arguments and not to count votes. @Charles Essie: and @Cuchullain: if you feel strongly about this issue you should not be seeking to overturn consensus and make this one article flout our guidelines, but you should start an RfC to get the guidelines changed, because (and maybe I would agree with you on this if it was applied sitewide) I'm not sure the "consistently capitalised" criterion is fit for purpose at the moment.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Except there are sources that capitalize on it. Academic sources. Relying on the consensus of the naturally informal overall internet on something that requires capitalization or not (when people barely follow proper capitalization at all) seems designed to always fail. The policy doesn't actually make sense, in other words, and its better to go by the spirit of the policy than by the letter of it, given that most people (we have now had people twice asking since this MR has been opened why the title is not capitalized) feel it should be, such titles historically are capitalized, and academic sources already go ahead and do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:dceb:aca9:e39c:245f:ab19 (talkcontribs)
Amakuru: I don't "feel strongly" about this issue one way or the other. However, it's obvious that reasonable people disagree about what the guidelines actually recommend in this case. WP:MOSCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, etc., say we capitalize proper names, as determined by sources. Similarly, MOS:MILTERMS says that if an article is "an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized". None of them give much recommendation about making that determination: which sources to use, how wide a margin it should require, etc., and the guidelines are not consistently applied even in move discussions. The disagreement here is that some feel that the most relevant sources consistently capitalize the term, and other feel that they don't, and the close judgement calls by closers of the various discussions haven't gotten us any closer to resolving that issue. Hence my feeling that we should return to the stable title, and seek further clarity on the guideline level if necessary. Perhaps those who do feel strongly about the issue should lead that charge.--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, Cuchullain, and I take your point. I would certainly welcome more clarity in the guidelines, since ultimately that's what we will use to ensure consistency. But you're most likely right that they are not crystal clear in this instance. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Queen Anne of Romania (closed)[edit]

Archive[edit]

2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2016
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December


See also[edit]