- 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 These 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Apologies, the same logic applies to google search results. I have updated the post. I don't believe that changes anything I said and is a fairly reasonable mistake given the frequent use of ngrams in these discussions. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:TALK#REPLIED, please don't remove content that others have already replied to; instead, you should strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I will do so. Please update your comment as well. For the record, BilledMammal changed their first comment [1] after I responded. Desertambition (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I didn't realize you had already replied - for some reason, there was no edit conflict. However, I did not alter any aspect that you had responded to, and instead clarified a separate part, so I don't believe it will cause any misunderstanding. BilledMammal (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, per WP:TALK#REPLIED you should indicate what words you inserted and what words you deleted as editing a comment after someone has replied can deprive replies of their original context. Desertambition (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See your talk page, to keep this move review on topic. BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BilledMammal is requesting I edit my comment to comply with WP:TALK#REPLIED but is refusing to edit their own comment to comply with the guidelines. Seems hypocritical to me. Do not understand why this discussion needs to take place on my talk page but the other discussion did not. Desertambition (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that the Google News and the Google Scholar results for Queenstown were controlled for -
Note the results for Queenstown are likely to be lower than the true figures, due to the need to restrict the search due to this Queenstown not being the primary topic - and if editors thought the controls were inadequate that should have been raised during the RM, as MRV is not the place the relitigate the move request. I would also note that the results for Komani were not controlled for in an attempt to provide the most optimistic estimate for Komani (and thus the strongest argument for Queenstown), and included topics such as Komani Reservoir in Albania, Bakau Komani , Mohammed Komani, and others. BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have brought up this point countless times and you are fully aware of this but I digress. It's also bad practice to endorse a move review you are directly involved in for exactly this reason, it's pointless and leads to the exact same arguments. There is no point to continue this argument. We clearly aren't agreeing, which is why I created this move review. You added information to your first comment after I replied and was not able to respond while simultaneously requesting I edit my comment to indicate what had changed. Nothing to do but wait for more input. Desertambition (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (uninvolved) I'm leaning towards relisting, if only because I think Spekkios is borderline involved. The nominator and closer have clashed in the context of very similar RM discussions before (e.g. here, and here), as well as having other clashes all over the project, spilling over multiple times into ANI (with one thread still on the go), and it's hard not to see this as creating the perception of a COI. I don't doubt Spekkios was acting in good faith when they closed this, but I think it would be better to leave it to someone else. Colin M (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I was going through the expired list and closed a bunch of others requests too. I understand your point though and I would be happy to manually relist on this basis. --Spekkios (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist (not involved). Spekkios, I really don't understand how you decided it was a good idea for you to be closing this discussion. There have been so many recent conflicts between you and the nominator, including clashing several times at ANI in recent weeks. In such situations it's really difficult to overcome the inevitable unconscious bias, and even if you manage to, you'll still be creating the stark appearance of being involved. Never ever act in administrative capacity with respect to editors you're in conflict with – this undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. There's a huge backlog at RM, with discussions over a month old awaiting closure, there was no pressing need for you to pounce on a discussion that had just come out of the 7-day period. Now, about the RM itself: it seems that it can do with further discussion, so relisting is a good idea regardless. If it were to be closed now, then that couldn't possibly be "consensus not to move". With a more or less equal split among both the sources presented (assuming the Google counts are correct, they rarely are) and among the participants, the only outcome can be "no consensus". – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to explain - I closed multiple expired listings not in the backlog in addition to this one. I also relisted two additional RM's by the nominator, one of them after they requested. I will revert my close of the RM though based on what you and Colin have said, though. --00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Spekkios (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved). Though my Britannica argument was shown to be flawed, Google Scholar and Google News show that ‘Queenstown’ is still the WP:COMMONNAME. I would also note that of the sources using ‘Komani’, most of them are only local, showing that ‘Komani’ has yet to fulfill the WP:GLOBAL criteria. Ale3353 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
