Zürich ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

I think this RM was closed too quickly. It looks like all the editors who supported the move based their arguments on flawed statistics that I tried to improve just a few hours before the close. None of the supporters had time to respond, which I find incorrect, especially when the previous RM lasted two weeks and when there is potentially a large number of articles affected by this move. I also don't understand the sentence "Substantial evidence for the competing usages was presented by both sides", as I really don't see substantial evidence supporting the move. mgeo talk 06:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Support closure. Procedurally, this seems to have been done by the book; there was clear consensus for the move. Previous move discussion was far enough in the past that it is not reasonable to impose a higher burden on the reversal - consensus can, after all, change. Van Isaac _{WS Vex} ^contribs 09:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

PS, the closing admin has also initiated a closure review at WP:AN#Closure review request for Talk:Zürich#Requested move 4. Van Isaac _{WS Vex} ^contribs 10:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support closure Don't see any problems here. Number 5 7 13:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist. If discussion is ongoing, especially if substantive arguments have been recently made, it's better to relist and allow to consensus to continue developing. I don't think consensus was clear in this case, especially since the latest stuff was not evaluated/discussed. -- B2 C 19:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't particularly want to delve into a review of my own close, but I (and I think any administrator) would have gladly given more time to the discussion had anyone participating in it actually said that more time was needed. I saw no indication of this. bd2412 T 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • My point is that when someone makes new and substantial contributions to a discussion, that is or should be seen as clear indication that more time may be needed. In this case a user made 10 edits during the period 5-12 hours prior to your closing. We have no way of knowing whether others didn't care to respond, if they needed more time to think about it, or what. In any case, the only way to find out is to give it more time. The only way to ensure that closers relist rather close in such situations in the future is that we decide to relist in the reviews of such closes. -- B2 C 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
      • That would be an easy rule to game. Editors who did not like the direction a move discussion was taking could perpetually post some tidbit of new information a few hours before each closing date. I'm not suggesting that this happened here, or that we could not craft a policy that would allow for extensions without being subject to such manipulation, but our current standard of seven days to close a move request provides a reasonable amount of time to accomplish all the discussion that is usually needed. bd2412 T 15:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Exactly. An occasional polite request to relist when you still have something to say is fine, but any sort of established prohibition of closing while discussion is taking place would grant every editor the ability to filibuster (see how well that works for the US Senate, with just a hundred of them!). -- BDD ( talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Wasn't this a polite request to relist? I think it's unrealistic (and more open to gaming) for a closer to suggest that relist was not a reasonable option because there was no explicit request to relist made at the RM. That rarely (if ever) happens. Nor should it; people shouldn't have to track the discussion, and when it gets to day 6 1/2, add a "Relist please" comment in order to stave off an early close. I think it's reasonable to assume that if a discussion is active, most closers will relist on their own accord. If a closer feels that the discussion has run its natural course, despite any recent activity, then it's fine to close it. But a relist should not be made contingent on someone asking for a relist before a closer shows up. Dohn joe ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It takes two to tango. After one relist, if one person keeps commenting, but nobody else, then that's not discussion. But if there is actual ongoing substantive discussion, and especially with no previous relist, as there was in this case, closing is unhelpful and should be discouraged if not banned outright. -- B2 C 04:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support closure - Pretty much as per Vanisaac, I should note that I would also have voted to support the move had I participated though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close – a perfectly reasonable interpretation of consensus. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was entrenched disagreement, all reasonably presented, but there was a sufficiently large majority to reverse the 2010 move. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close consensus was clear. Hot Stop talk- contribs 14:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Nothing wrong here. RMs are subject to closing after a week; if you don't like it, take it up at WT:RM. -- BDD ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thirty Seconds to Mars ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Respectfully, I think User:BDD seems to have misread the consensus. Only the nominator of the move expressed support (and it's obvious that the nominator is in support), while another user expresses a weak support because "with no assertions as to common name yet" (and then I clarified that point). Two other users were opposed to the move. The nominator of the move said that he has been in contact with two of the band's rep; any kind of evidence of that? Other users left comments which did not express any kind of support or oppose. The band currently uses both names, since 1998 they have been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards. On wiki now he have Attack (30 Seconds to Mars song) and Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song). We cannot have different names for the same band. The problem is that 30 Seconds to Mars is the official name from ever. That's why the majority of third-party sources use "30 Seconds". "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect to it per WP:COMMONNAME. AllMusic, a notable music website, states that the official name is 30 Seconds to Mars and that the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars [1]. On Wikipedia, after the move, we have the contrary. Earthh ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closer. Earthh continues to hold to this bizarre view that the opinions of bobrayner and Mayast don't count because they didn't state their opinion in bold. As I said on the article talk page, we could simply leave closing to bots if it was just a matter of counting bolded supports and opposes. Quite the contrary to how this is being framed, only Earthh and an IP opposed the move. -- BDD ( talk) 20:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - this is quite a bizarre closure from an admin who's normally very fair and measured in my experience. Looking just at the arguments, I find the rationale for the nomination quite odd - there is no policy that says an artist's self-identification should trump WP:COMMONNAME, and even the existence of that self-identification seems to be somewhat in doubt. On the keep side, there seems to be a feeling that "30" is the common name - nobody provides direct evidence, but nobody disputes it either. Moving on to votes, it's three supports (one of which is weak) vs. two opposes. As for Mayast's "support" the comment actually says "I personally prefer "30", but I'll accept the change"; doesn't seem like a clear cut vote for a change to me. As a final point, this same request was filed in March and closed as a fairly clear don't move. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 20:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, @ Amakuru: That's what I meant :) Secondly, I agree with Earthh that we now have a mess with the names of the songs. From a practical point of view, if I didn't know the band very well and was searching Wikipedia for a song I heard on the radio, eg. titled "Do or Die", I think I would rather click the link Do or Die (30 Seconds to Mars song) than Do or Die (Thirty Seconds to Mars song). I don't know how to clearly describe this experience, but I think our brains process that number faster than all those letters: T-H-I-R-T-Y ;) I feel that the move was done too soon and the topic needs a little more discussion. — Mayast ( talk) 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. -- B2 C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Reopen or Relist there's no clear consensus, and no policy/guideline/general practice cited to move the page, it's all just generally discussion, so discussion should have been extended, instead of moved. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - There was no consensus at best and a consensus against the move otherwise. And like when deadmau5 was moved to deadmaus EVERYONE is coming out of the woodwork to complain! That usually means that wikipedia [REDACTED] up! PantherLeapord| My talk page| My CSD log 11:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - My grief. We've got one support (the nominator's), one weak support, and two oppose votes. That's not a consensus. Myast very clearly didn't !vote, and even if you have to take a vote out of it, it's a neutral vote. bobrayner didn't even say anything that was approaching a vote on where the article should be. Note that I have very little actual objection to the name change, but procedurally, this is a terrible joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (reclose with a decent explanation). The consensus is not obvious, and so the closer must explain in the close well enough for any reasonable editor to understand the close. This is not the case here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Though a more thorough closing summary would be good, BDD made a perfectly reasonable call when all the comments are factored in as opposed to just counting "votes". FreeRangeFrog, Red Slash and bobrayner supported the move; Mayast also made supportive comments. This is in addition to Noyes388, whose evidence before the RM is the reason it started. Only Earthh and an IP opposed, and I don't regard their reasoning as convincing. It was stated, but never shown, that "30 Seconds" is the more common stylization. It's clear that "Thirty seconds" is well established, preferred by the band themselves, perfectly acceptable by the MOS, and was supported by the majority of participants in the discussion.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• I fail to see how you can read any sort of keep or delete !vote out of the majority of those comments, and that's the real problem. It really is not clear that it was well supported in the discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

FreeRangeFrog, Red Slash and bobrayner made it easy by, well, supporting the move. Combining that with the other matters of judgement (Mayast's supportive commentsm Noyes388's comments that led to the RM, and the lack of evidence for the 2 oppose voters' claims), BDD made a perfectly reasonable judgement call.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The consensus is not clear. The nominator should prove that "Thirty Seconds" is the common stylization (it is not) since "30 Seconds" is the official name from the very beginning and is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. I'd like to highlight that I also gave you a source by AllMusic and that this same request was filed five months ago and closed as a clear don't move.-- Earthh ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. -- BDD ( talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Here's my personal computation of the head count situation. You can see at a glance that there's two boldfaced opposes and one support with "weak" in boldface. Mayast's comments ("I personally prefer '30'") look to me like another weak oppose - weak, but expressing only a willingness to let it happen, not supportive at all – in fact expressing a preference against the move – and that interpretation is confirmed by Mayast's comments above. Since the previous move request was also recent (and by the same nominator for the same action), I think it should count for something – its outcome looks like a fairly strong oppose to me. I agree that Noyes388's prior comment should count here too. So here it is: Noyes388 = +1.0, FreeRangeFrog = +1.0, Bobrayner = +1.0, Red Slash = +0.5, Mayast = -0.50, 76.65.128.222 = -1.0, Earthh = -1.0, Requested move #1 = -1.0. That adds up to 0.0. That's not a consensus to take action. I think the discussion should have continued, or it should have been closed as "no consensus" (not moved). — BarrelProof ( talk) 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but that's just a bad way to break down discussions. It's not a simple tally, nor can we just make up our own number values for each comment.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• And yet you've claimed there is a clear consensus for moving, based on similarly constructed evidence... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I said the discussion was such that BDD made a perfectly reasonable judgement call in closing as he did, which is accurate.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I understand that move decisions are not ordinarily simple tallies. It's just that BDD said that the decision criterion in this case "went with a headcount", so I tried to do my own headcount to see how it added up. Certainly the weights assigned to the various elements in my computation are subject to adjustment. Different people would perhaps assign different weights to each of those elements – perhaps even assigning zero weight to some of those elements – please feel free to suggest different weights (although the +/- sign value that I assigned to each element seems to be pretty clearly correct). With different weights, it may add up to a different value – but I was kind of surprised that my computation added up to zero. My opinion is that the sum should be pretty substantially away from zero (on the positive side) to establish a consensus to take action. I just looked at this out of curiosity – I didn't participate in the RM discussion and don't have a personal preference about the page name. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

On My Way (song) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Respectfully, I think User:Tariqabjotu seems to have misread the consensus. His explanation "this is the only song of this name with an article" might be a reason to support the move, but is not a sensible interpretation of the responses at the RM; it doesn't even consider the immediately preceding first unanimously opposed RM. The partial disambiguation there is very annoying, as multiple editors pointed out in the discussion, in light of the other 7 songs by the same title listed at On My Way, some of which are at least as notable as this obscure one (see the AfD discussion for more on that); I don't think the article is so obscure that it needs to be deleted, but if that's the only way to fix the WP:PDAB problem, that might be what happens. With 4 supporters, and 4 opposers (including one in the first RM that didn't show up in the second), it can hardly be called a consensus to move. The closer used his own interpretation of policy, rather than the reasonable interpretations of the RM responders. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (revert name or delete the article): There is no justification for this WP:PDAB of one song among seven. I might be willing to consider the idea that a WP:PDAB situation could sometimes be defensible, but definitely not this one. I previously commented extensively on this issue, although I did not comment in the last RM discussion because I had already commented a couple of weeks earlier on the same request and thought the situation was so obvious that it would definitely close without a move without any need to repeat myself. No notability has been established for this song, much less a primary notability among the several (currently seven) songs with this title as listed at On My Way (disambiguation). These arguments were raised in the previous move discussions, although the situation has been further clarified since the second RM closed with a move, since that action motivated some digging. I see no reason why the mere existence of a stand-alone article on Wikipedia should be considered sufficient evidence of primary notability in itself (especially to a degree sufficient to justify a WP:PDAB title), when there are clearly other candidate targets already present on Wikipedia (and especially when the article contains no clear evidence of notability). In addition to Talk:On My Way (song), please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Way (song) and User talk:Tariqabjotu#Closing of move request for On My Way (Charlie Brown song) → On My Way (song) and User talk:Jafeluv#Request for your assistance for further discussions of this topic. Note also that the article was a recent creation by a user who has previously been blocked and has been warned repeatedly about creating discography articles of questionable notability. Also, consider WP:RECENT. This song is only months old and there is no evidence of notability provided yet, and thus especially no evidence of long-term notability sufficient to justify WP:PRIMARY (much less WP:PDAB) status. Having this article at On My Way (song) creates a highly ambiguous situation with no justification whatsoever. No disrespect for Tariq in general, but I think he made the wrong call on this one. — BarrelProof ( talk) 03:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This is a case covered by a disputed guideline, WP:PDAB, tagged as disputed, and under RfC. The closer is a participant in that discussion, and is therefore not WP:Uninvolved in reading this consensus. While the discussion is poor, with opposing participants talking past each other, I think a rough consensus to move is defendable, though only with ignoring the recently preceding RM. I think the discussion should be best closed as "no consensus" or "on hold" until a close of the WP:PDAB RfC. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  Also, it may be worth mentioning that this second move request was initiated by the proposer citing the move of Jack (Breach song) → Jack (song) as the precedent for reopening the prior move discussion that had just been closed (and was the same proposer as in the just-closed previous move request). That other move was closed less than two weeks previously by Tariq (the same person who closed this move), and it also involved the same basic issue of a "primary song" for a given song title, and the same basic issue of highly questionable notability for the song that was the subject of the article, and had more responses recorded as "oppose" than "support". But regardless of whether WP:PDAB holds up or not, this move isn't justified since there is no evidence that this song is more notable than the others, or even notable at all. — BarrelProof ( talk) 07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  Both of you are using spurious accusations to make your case, and the fact that you feel they're necessary reveals the weakness of your position on this.

  To SmokeyJoe, your accusation of conflict of interest doesn't make sense. Yes, I participated in the PDAB RfC, but I ultimately supported the existence of PDAB. Aside from the absurdity that is arguing that one's belief in the validity of an existing guideline prevents one from considering that guideline when closing discussions, the opponents, not the supporters, of the move invoked PDAB. I moved the article despite my support of PDAB. And since PDAB was the rationale of opponents, the only thing that a revocation of the guideline would do is reinforce the decision to move.

  To BarrelProof, you seemed to concede that closing a similar move request was not an problem, a point Jafeluv ( talk · contribs) echoed, and yet you've brought it up again here. Why? I don't know. I imagine that all of the small handful of admins who do their best to clean up that RM backlog have closed similar requests -- sometimes in quick succession -- as move requests of similar forms is extremely common at RM. For example, in recent weeks, there have been a spate of requests regarding changing diacritics on Vietnamese articles, several requests regarding dropping the "entertainer" disambiguator, and several requests for changing disambiguators for TV series' seasons. It's absurd to think that closing one RM discussion disqualifies you from closing the rest of that nature. Because there tend to be similar requests in close temporal proximity, you'll also observe that the Talk:Best Song Ever (song) RM was closed under similar circumstances, and in a similar manner, by a different admin. -- tariqabjotu 09:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Hi Tariqabjotu. At least, as a matter of appearance, and given the contention currently in the PDAB question, it would be better for an admin previously unconcerned with PDAB to make rough consensus closes on squarely PDAB closes. You look to have done a good job of acting without reference to your personal opinion, but ideally you shouldn't have a personal opinion relating to a discussion you close, especially not if it is a contentious rough consensus. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Responding to the comment addressed to me by Tariqabjotu: Yes, I did concede that closing multiple move requests that raise similar issues is not a problem per se (and that you had simply forgotten that you had closed the other closely related move that was cited in the move request). I then went on to say "But this particular situation bugs me...". I guess I brought it up here not because I thought it was evidence that you had a sinister plan to actively seek non-notable PDAB song move requests and close them in a particular way, but rather to show that there was an explicit connection in the record between the two moves and to suggest your judgment on both move closures might be systematically clouded in the same way (so that we might look to the other closure as evidence of your general way of thinking and acting in such a circumstance – after all, this discussion is about the wisdom of your judgment of the consensus in the context of the relevant policies and guidelines, and the other move brought up the same issues and had more "opposes" than "support"s). Also, considering the rapid proximity in time (and the same nominator identity) between the two requests on this article, I think you should have considered the comments in both discussions for this article when closing the second request (which is why I thought it undesirable to repeat myself in the second discussion). — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin To clarify, the numbers from the second move request were 5-3 in favor of moving and, when combining both move requests, 5-4 in favor of moving (with all but one of the supporters not commenting in the first move request and BarrelProof not commenting in the second). Those numbers are quite close and almost any decision could have been seen as valid. But this isn't about the set of all possible actions; it's whether this action -- moving the article -- is acceptable. Much of what Dicklyon and, especially, BarrelProof said is rearguing the move. Their opposition to the move has already been registered; with these numbers, in order for this move review to be successful, they're going to have to prove that I overlooked something or that the outnumbered opposition appealed to policy and guidelines more than the supporters. Alas, I don't see how that case can be made. Those against the move argue that PDAB enjoins us to fully disambiguate this article with Charlie Brown song. However, those for it argued that PDAB does not do that, as we need only disambiguate against concepts with articles. I see nothing invalid about the points of those supporters, as PDAB is mute on what constitutes a topic that needs to be disambiguated against.

  On My Way (disambiguation) has been greatly restructured since the move request and its closure, with additional songs of the same name added and the links restructured using redirects taking the form On My Way (X song). Frankly, I think these modifications are a bit sneaky, intended to lend false credence to the idea that those songs need to be disambiguated against. (I don't know if there's anything in the disambiguation page guidelines expressly forbidding that kind of linking, but I don't think I've ever seen article names hidden behind redirects.) None of the, originally four, now seven other songs mentioned on that page have their own articles, and virtually none of the articles that are targets of the redirects say anything about the songs of this name, other than the fact that they exist. Instead, they simply include "On the Way" under their track listings (as at The Fun of Watching Fireworks#Track listing), with no other information.

  When confronted by BarrelProof on my talk page about my closure, I pointed out this issue, saying I see no evidence in PDAB -- or anywhere else for that matter -- that we have to disambiguate against every article where a concept entitled "On My Way" appears with no further information whatsoever. If anything, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Related subjects says Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. So, guidelines and policies on this are vague, perhaps intentionally so; one might reasonably argue that that the acknowledgement of the existence of the song on the track is sufficient to be "actually described" and thus warrants mention on the disambiguation. And then, one might reasonably argue that the mention on the disambiguation page is sufficient to force other pages to be disambiguated against it. But that's solely one's interpretation, and I see no reason why the supporters' arguments here are objectively wrong and thus worthy of being disregarded or devalued.

  Nevertheless, I conceded to BarrelProof that it was a bit unseemly for someone to relaunch a move request just weeks later without any additional information. Because of that, I said that I was willing to defer to the judgment of the closer of the first move request, Jafeluv ( talk · contribs); if he felt, in light of the additional remarks, the article still shouldn't have been moved, I would have been happy to reverse the move. However, Jafeluv did not object, saying, among other things, that he thought my close was "well within limits of closer discretion". I don't know how many opinions one needs to be convinced that my closure is valid. -- tariqabjotu 08:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

While I'm here, I must say that I feel the way some of the people against these moves disagreed with the RM supporters was disrespectful. After the move, Dicklyon said [T]he fact that they don't have standalone articles does not make the title less ambiguous, except in the narrow minds of followers of User:Born2cycle.... This approaches a personal attack and exposes a battleground mentality, not to mention brings up an editor who didn't participate in either of the move requests on this article. Richhoncho, while stating that he wasn't surprised by the result, also added the fact that it was the wrong result is beyond debate. Oh is it? And this doesn't even speak to the spurious attacks on me (which I'll address in a reply above as I see they've been repeated here). Can we be a bit more courteous, and cognizant to the idea that your opinions aren't the only ones out there? -- tariqabjotu 08:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Tariq, what I wrote was, "I am not surprised by the result, the fact that it was the wrong result is beyond debate" - meaning that I had no problem with the closure. I am not blaming the referee because my team lost is probably the best analogy. If you have read anything else into my comments, please accept my apologies. I may comment later on the MR, but not now. Cheers.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't believe I misunderstood the first half of sentence; it seemed clear to me that you felt the closure was fair, even though it wasn't your preferred outcome. But perhaps, given your elaboration, I misunderstood the second half of that sentence. -- tariqabjotu 10:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Responding to Tariq: I too don't know how many opinions we need to determine whether your closure was valid or not, but there are clearly at least two three of us who think it was not. I didn't open this move review. — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Outside opinions, obviously. You and Dicklyon opposed the move; I take your stance that the decision to move was invalid with a grain of salt. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You are wrong there; I did not participate in the RM. My only posting there came after your close. You can regard mine as an outside opinion if you like, or you can add it to the opposes if you want to count how I would have weighed in if I had noticed this one going on earlier. As for my "personal attack" on B2C, it was really just an explanation of the narrow view of precision, which he is the main architect and author of through his work in rewriting WP:TITLE over the last few years. It is a sensible observation that "the fact that they don't have standalone articles does not make the title less ambiguous, except in the narrow minds of followers of User:Born2cycle", yes? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're right; you didn't participate, which makes your swift indignation rather puzzling (you "missed it" by five hours). And, no, I don't think that observation is sensible; I feel there's a clear distinction between saying people have narrow minds and saying they have narrow views of a particular idea. -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Perhaps so; my bad wording; instead of mentioning "narrow minds", I should have stuck with the adjective "narrowminded", defined as "having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced", which is essentially what you mean by having "narrow views" I think. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Strictly speaking, I also did not participate in the RM that we're reviewing, since what we're reviewing is the second move discussion. I did participate in the immediately preceding RM (with one brief comment). — BarrelProof ( talk) 08:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You can't have it both ways. Either you want your opinion to count by considering the first request as well, thereby making you a participant, or you don't want it to count by considering the second request alone. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to "have it both ways". All I did was provide a clarification about happened (with respect to both move requests). As I have said, I think the first RM should be considered as well – and I think that you may not have given it adequate consideration when closing the second RM. — BarrelProof ( talk) 17:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. I did not participate in this discussion. Per Tariq's explanation, a majority favored a move, and their position was based on policy/guidelines. -- B2 C 14:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - sorry Tariqabjotu but whether another song has a standalone article or is mentioned in an album article should be irrelevant. None of the WP:DAB guidelines distinguish between a standalone stub and a paragraph - or significant mention - in a larger article. If they did that would simply be encouraging needless breakouts and forks all across en.Wikipedia. I agree that WP:DAB could be worded more clearly to say that en.wp mention/content/sources not a standalone title is the base of disambiguation. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The redirect links Dicklyon added to the dab don't change the fact that we have only one article about a song called "On My Way." This was a perfectly cromulent close, given the majority support, lack of a titling conflict, and being in line with recent closes (such as that at Talk:Best Song Ever (song)#Requested move). WP:JDLI seems to apply. -- BDD ( talk) 19:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

@ BDD: (does ping work?) Hi BDD, there re your comments "This is indeed the only article" (in RM) "we have only one article about a song" (above) or T's close "Indeed, this is the only song of this name with an article" (close) Tbhotch "no[t] ambiguity in article titles as required by WP:D" (Tbhotch) "This is the only notable song called "On My Way" to have its own song page on Wikipedia" (68.44.51.49) ; "This is the only song article by the title "On My Way" (Aspects) ; ...every single support vote and the close has misread the first line of WP:DAB. We are supposed to be disambiguating against what is covered. In my own second oppose I cited correctly WP:D "WP:D states that we dab by coverage not by titles, which was the point of "Not having a stand-alone article is not evidence of non-notability" by User:BarrelProof and User:Richhoncho above" - so why did all these supports reference "This is indeed the only article" rather than what WP:DAB says, which is assess coverage? We have coverage of 7 other songs of this name on albums en.wp. Why was the collective notability of these 7 songs not weighed against the 1 new song as WP:DAB requires?

This is a classic recurring problem specific to songs since notable album songs (such in this case as the Phil Collins song used in the Disney film and trailer) don't have standalone articles, because they aren't singles. Yet any album song by a major artist - such as the Beatles, Rolling Stones, (Phil Collins relative to Charlie Brown) is always going to be more notable than a single by an unknown artist. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

@ In ictu oculi: First, I don't believe {{ ping}} works here because it's not a talk page. Second, I already addressed this point below, in response to a previous comment of yours (oddly addressed to BDD) about this. Some of the supporting remarks may have oversimplified WP:D (as is extremely common), but some of them (and, in this case, my closing remark) did not. Neither We have only one article about a song nor Indeed, this is the only song of this name with an article specify a standalone article. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

(Ping seems to work on my laptop for Internet Explorer not Firefox). Both of thoese comments were addressed to BDD because we had a truncated discussion elsewhere earlier. I am sorry if it is out of process to talk to another commentor in a Move Review (?). The point is that this RM is the nth RM in a long series arguing that we should disambiguate against titles not content - this was the argument of supports - and that is not what WP:DAB says. This RM in itself is irrelevant, I would rather see WP:DAB lead clearly written to explicitly state that we disambiguate against what is covered by articles not articles, because it keeps getting misread and cited-but-not-read and not just in the standalone song (single) vs non-standalone song (album) context. I three days ago made a comment on this at Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

@ In ictu oculi: I am sorry if it is out of process to talk to another commentor in a Move Review I never said that. The point is that this RM is the nth RM in a long series arguing that we should disambiguate against titles not content. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer; please read the responses to your comments. -- tariqabjotu 01:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm getting notifications from the mention of me, yes. I'd prefer to continue this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Covered by"; IIO, thanks for starting that. -- BDD ( talk) 03:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Comment only. There are also plenty of examples of the contrary, in fact, I would say RMs have been going 50/50 either way. The result usually depends on how recently the song has charted! While on this matter I note that all the article links to the new title are still via On My Way (Charlie Brown song), so from a practical point of view the move was unnecessary and all rather pointless. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I participated in the discussion and supported the move. The reason I endorse the close is that those opposed are simply rehashing their arguments instead of showing they think the discussion was closed against WP:RMCI. Aspects ( talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

No Aspects, the issue is that WP:DAB was misread by several of the supports and supports on the basis of misquoting or misreading a guideline don't count - Likewise User:BDD, I say this as a friend, please look at what the first line of WP:DAB what does "covered by articles" mean? Does it mean "standalone article" or not? Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 10:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. But what about the word covered? What needs to be in an article for it to be considered as covering a topic? I'm not sure any of the supporters misread the guideline; rather, one or two may have oversimplified it by saying there was no article. Actually, of all the supporters, BDD was among those to not make that oversimplification, as he opted to simply say This is indeed the only article we have on a song titled "On My Way".

You are free to argue that mentioning that the song exists on a particular album constitutes an article covering a topic, but, unfortunately, more people didn't feel that way. And even some of the objectors simply ended their objections with the sentiment that not having a standalone article is not sufficient (as it isn't) or that this is not the primary topic of all the songs in existence with this title. The problem is neither of those objections address the point that there is no other article covering a song of the same name, not even by saying that they feel the mere mention constitutes "covering". -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

To me, the listing of a song on a dab page for the title of the song, along with a link to a corresponding article that contains some mention of the song, means that the topic of the song is covered in an article. If it wasn't covered there, the dab page wouldn't have a link. Maybe the coverage is sparse, but there's some kind of coverage of the topic. In this case, the coverage in the stand-alone article is also sparse. Perhaps in both cases that is because the encyclopedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. But after all this discussion, if the Charlie Brown song had WP:SIGCOV in major press somewhere, we'd probably know it by now. — BarrelProof ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

And you are entitled to feel that way. However, there is no reason your perspective on this point should be taken as gospel. More people appeared to disagree with you than agree with you. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (revert name or delete the article) - it's a tough one, this. On the basis of the actual move request itself, it would be legitimate to say there was consensus for a move - the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF can be tossed - that is a policy designed to shoot down certain other arguments, it is not an argument in itself. But looking across both RMs (which you should, as they were held so close together), I think both sides make valid arguments - WP:DAB is not very specific on what to do if there's one article and several redlinks, all of roughly equal notability. So really, I think it comes down to the votes. As the closer says above, the tally was 5-4. In my opinion that is clear and unambiguous "no consensus" territory, I don't agree with the assertion that "almost any decision could have been seen as valid". Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

To be honest the problem is the RM proposal, not in any way the closer, WP:RM for the last 3 months seems to have a stream of RMs trying to ambiguate song and album articles. It's not possible every single time one comes up (and this one came back twice) and check every song RM in the RM stream [a stream which was previous "It's primary song" but now, thankfully, is "It's the only standalone article"] in this case one of the opposers (or indeed one of the supporters!) should simply have pasted this into the RM:

Thomas S. Hischak, ‎Mark A. Robinson The Disney Song Encyclopedia 2009 Page 146 "“On My Way” is the rhythmic folk-rock number Phil Collins wrote for the animated movie Brother Bear (2003). Collins sings the throbbing song, about going off to new places with new friends, during a montage when the human-turned-bear Kenai befriends the rambunctious bear cub Koda. ..

It's evident in Google Books and plain Google that the Phil Collins song is infinitely more notable than this new British rapper. But the nominator in the RM (twice) didn't present that information, and none of the supporters nor opposers found it. The real problem here is that even after the "primary album" stuff has gone from MOS:Album some song/album editors seem enthusiastic for ambiguation. Yet song titles are the most easily multiplied and duplicated articles an encyclopedia could have - simply by the number of songs each year compared to movie titles, book titles or even album titles. We need to ask, what's the urgency to ambiguate? This article is going to barely scrape past AfD and we had to ambiguate it? Why?? What is so beneficial about ambiguating song titles? In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Nor did any of the opposers before, during, or after the RM create an article on any of the other songs of this title or expand the album articles related to them to provide any information about them. And I'm not sure why, other than to prove that their position that song articles need to be disambiguated against all album articles where songs of the same name are mentioned with no additional information is correct (although there would still at least be Jack (song) and Best Song Ever (song) running counter to that). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Well as I said the fault here lies mainly with proposer, supporter and opposers for having missed Phil Collins' Disney song (I include myself in that twice in both RMs), but honestly you didn't make a good call either. No one gains credit from this second bite RM. In the past I've done exactly what you suggest and create "missing" articles prompted by an RM, I just did one for the "other" Kozo Watanabe, but passers by at RM can't do that every time, we have to work with what "could" be added, and for that Google Books is there. I'm sorry but this was not a good call from anyone. In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close the closing admin made the correct call. This is the only song named "On My Way". Hot Stop talk- contribs 17:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You mean except for the other 7 songs named On My Way that we cover in wikipedia articles at about the same depth (which isn't much)? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It meant it's the only one with its own article. Sorry you couldn't figure that part out on your own. Hot Stop talk- contribs 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn- Speaking as a sysop: there's a feeling of a supervote here. Even on the numbers just from the second RM it was 5-3 supported, that's very weak not a strong consensus on its own. But, especially having just failed to get any traction 3 weeks prior. And the interpretation of policy in the close "this is the only song of this name with an article" is a bit shaky per WP:PDAB, WP:PRECISE and WP:NDESC. If one looks at the numbers from the prior RM (closed 3 weeks before the second) it was 4-1 opposed (with exactly the same request) so then the !vote stacks up as 8-5 opposed 5-4 support for the same issue within 1 month - that's *not* a consensus to move. With all this in mind, for me looking at the numbers of the second RM two closes come to mind: "Relist for wider input" or "no consensus". That's why this is a !supervote.

  From a purely content POV: if other songs with the same title exist then On My Way (song) should be a DAB page whether the other songs have their own page currently or not - it's hoped that they'll all have one if they're notable-- Cailil ^talk 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  @ Cailil: You miscounted. The second move request was 5-3 in favor of moving (including the nominator). All but one of those who participated in the first move request participated in the second, so it was 5-4 in favor of moving if you include both requests. -- tariqabjotu 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  Thanks Tariq yep I messed up my maths there. But 5-4 after two RMs is still in "no consensus" or "relist" territory. Actually much more so-- Cailil ^talk 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment only. I am already on record as saying I understood the decision made, but was unhappy. Since then there have been two significant items. One I shall, at this time, be silent on, the other is a change in WP:DAB, which is a guideline that supports a move. My recommendation to User:Tariqabjotu is to let a new nomination for a move be made - this moves on this review with no loss of face for any party. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  @ Richhoncho: Can you point out what those changes were? -- tariqabjotu 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  Oh, I assume you're referring to this. This doesn't introduce anything new. There is no question that coverage in other articles (not just standalone articles) require disambiguation, even if it's often oversimplified as just referring to standalone articles. endorsed this close). The dispute seemed to be about whether a song called "On My Way" is considered to be covered by articles like this, which say nothing more than the fact that there is an album with a song entitled "On My Way". I'm curious what the other point you reference is, though. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  That being said, looking at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Covered by", I'm wondering if the footnote was meant to say more that it actually does. Born2cycle ( talk · contribs), for example, says Yes, if a subject is discussed "in any depth whatsoever (even just one sentence within a larger article that provides a context for the subject, and perhaps even just identifying the subject explicitly without further elaborating on it)", as demonstrated by a dab page link, redirect, or hatlink to that discussion... that's what I mean by "a secondary topic of an article". And, yet, he endorsed this move. It could, of course, mean that he's endorsing this move as it was reasonable (or the arguments supporting it were reasonable), given the state of policies and guidelines at the time... but some clarification from the horse's mouth would be appreciated. Also, if that was the meaning intended by the footnote, it probably should say that, as the "covered by" statement retains the same ambiguity it had before. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  The name of a topic being listed in a stub article with nothing else said about that topic is really, really thin border-line covering of that topic on Wikipedia. Still, if this was the only use of "On My Way" on WP, redirecting On My Way to that stub would be justified. So, if such a thin use of a term is one of two, that term barely squeezes into the disambiguation process, but it does. However, unless the other use is equally thin, it has to be the primary topic. -- B2 C 00:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Journey Through the Decade ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Consensus had begun to change after an intended relisting and posting on WT:AT, but due to a technicality in a malformed relisting and his own determination of the closure, Tariqabjotu will not allow the relisting to continue and suggests that MOS:CT be changed instead of allowing pages to be exceptions.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close – The only thing wrong on this one is that non-admin User:Born2cycle relisted it when it was unanimously opposed, and then went off to TITLE, where he still has a few friends, and in this diff painted the WP:MOS as a potential loser in trying to stir up an anti- MOS:CT fight about this obscure item that doesn't even appear in any English-language sources. Two editors bit; that's hardly concensus starting to change. At least two different admins subsequently chastised B2C and closed it as no move, which seems reasonable – sort of like the previous two attempts to make this an exception to MOS:CT. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  How exactly is a top 10 certified gold song an "obscure item"? Is it just because it has only charted in Japan rather than the US or UK? And why should an absence of English-language sources define how we should present the title of something?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  Yes, it charted. It's "obscure" because it's not really discussed in sources to any extent that I can see. Maybe I just can't see the Japanese ones. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  For the record, I did not participate in the original RM until B2C's relisting and post at WT:TITLE attracted a support comment that I replied to. I did not register my opposition explicitly, but should have, to make it clear that the consensus was not changing. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  I get over 1 million results in Google though. I don't see how that's obscure unless you're presenting this from an Anglocentric viewpoint where amongst people who speak English as their first language this song is completely unheard of unless you are a fan of the artist or the media in which this song was tied with. In Japan it is most certainly notable considering its chart success.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 05:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment from closing admin To clarify, this wasn't really just my determination; EdJohnston ( talk · contribs)also closed the discussionwithout moving a couple days ago. He seemed confident of his decision even after he was informed of the [malformed] relisting, but he eventually reversed his closure. Either way, though, this now marks the second time an admin has closed the move request with this outcome. I also feel confident in my decision, given the participation and the arguments put forth (now and in the past). The last sentence of Ryulong's remark above is also a mischaracterization of my remarks. I never said that pages can't be exceptions; my suggestion that he try getting MOS:CT changed stems from the fact that this is his third attempt to get the title of this article changed. All three times, the primary objection has been the Manual of Style, and it'd seem like getting that changed rather repeatedly requesting the same move would be a better course of action.

I also feel that too much emphasis has been placed on the fact that there was an attempt to relist. First, because it was malformed, it was never actually relisted; it remained in the Backlog section of the Requested move page (which, historically, also serves to attract more attention anyway). Also, it's apparent to me that Born2cycle ( talk · contribs), the editor who attempted to relist the request, is not really a neutral party here, and prefers to have the article moved. As I stated on Talk:Journey Through the Decade, B2C has a history of placing notifications of move requests at WT:AT and WT:D when a discussion is not going the way he'd like ( [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), under the misguided impression that those who frequent those talk pages are "title experts" with a special role in RM discussions. The fact that he chose to post the same kind of notification in this situation, despite him not actually commenting in the RM discussion itself, betrays his interest in this request. Given that two people closed the nomination with a result, I think it's fair to say that there was nothing here warranting a relisting other than a hope to attract more people that would swing consensus in B2C's preferred direction.

So, we have two admins closing a rehash of a previous discussion in the same way... and the primary objection is that an editor with a vested interest was trying to relist the discussion. I don't see the justification for this move review. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay. B2c has been bad. But I still feel that the page should be moved. Why is it that requests to make exceptions are declined because of the very guidelines that they are sought to be made exceptions to?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Uh, because most people aren't convinced that this should be an exception? -- tariqabjotu 07:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

That doesn't seem what was happening this time.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 08:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (relist). (Note: I was the first "Support" !voter on day 9/10 of the 11 day discussion.) There was an active, non-repetative ongoing discussion. It was not ready for closure. An arbitrary bureacratic-rule-based reason motivated this close that interferes with productive (certainly good faith) discussion. I also criticise the close for not speaking to a finding of consensus or no consensus, and providing no summary information for a discussion containing divergent views. There probably needs to be a clarification of rules/guidance for relisting RMs. I think the practice of a small font signature inserted within the nomination looks very weird, and unprofessional. I recommend the XfD method, whcih may require fixing some bots. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (relist). When I first came upon this RM it had a handful of participants and the discussion did not seem to be about what I thought was the real issue: in cases where MOS:CT and usage in reliable sources conflict, which do we follow? Even though I do have an opinion about that, I decided to remain neutral and objective by relisting and posting an (unbiased and even anonymous) notification about the discussion at WT:AT, as I and other have done before. Is there something wrong with trying to get more input on an issue like this?

  As this was the first time I ever relisted, I didn't know the exact placement of the relisting template was critical, and so even though I thought I had relisted it, the request remained in the backlog. But one user apparently saw my notification and participated in the discussion. Despite the activity, EdJohnston closed the discussion. He was persuaded to reopen (thanks, Ed), and one more user participated. Despite all that activity, Tariq still closed.

  I still believe there could be benefit and maybe even a change in consensus if the discussion remains open. The alternative it to open another RM again. That seems ridiculous. Obviously there is interest in further discussion - what is the harm in relisting in order to allow it? -- B2 C 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Nothing on Wikipedia is truly anonymous; why/how do you think everyone knows that you posted that notification? If someone had WT:AT on their watchlist, they would very easily see that you made that notification. (I don't have it on my watchlist, but it was still obvious.) The idea that your posting to WT:AT was merely to neutrally get more input is an outright falsehood, betrayed by the other examples of you doing the same thing. The move requests at Talk:Jewish question, Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, Talk:Nguyễn, Talk:Avatar, and Talk:Limerick all had/have large numbers of participants, far more than most move requests have. The common bond is that the discussions were going counter to your position. As I've said before, it would be best if you stopped all your notifications at WT:AT as all move requests are article title issues, and editors who frequent there have no special role in RM discussions.

That you feel the discussion didn't follow the line of thinking you preferred is reason for you to comment in the discussion, not relist the discussion. The way you even framed the point further demonstrates your slant in this dispute: some of those who participated in the discussion felt that it was either (a) possible the sources were just following their relevant style guidelines, much in the same way Wikipedia would or (b) weren't reliable because they were merely English translations (all of the "reliable" sources were in Japanese). I see nothing invalid about these points, nor do I feel they suggest the discussion is missing some important issues. (Likewise, those who disagreed are reasonably entitled to feel that way, but, alas, theirs is not the prevailing opinion.)

There is already a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Prepositions in composition titles (started in June, rekindled this week) about capitalization of prepositions. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Japanese song and album titles (started last week, around the time this RM was opened) about this point. If this reliable sources vs. manual of style debate is what you want, it's already happening elsewhere. Trying to make this into a cause célèbre, though, is not helpful. -- tariqabjotu 20:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Gee, WP:AGF, much? I don't deny having an opinion on the matter. I tried my best to advertise the discussion in an unbiased fashion at WT:AT to broaden input (and it's a crapshoot as to which way that response will be leaning - it's not like I picked a group with a known bias one way or another on this issue), including leaving out my signature and not participating in the discussion. It's not my fault that it's impossible to be anonymous on WP. If anyone wanted to know who posted that, they could find out, of course. If they cared. On the other hand, if they didn't want to know, as it shouldn't matter, then I did the best I could to allow them to keep from knowing.

We disagree on whether there is benefit to leaving the discussion open. But in two paragraphs you failed to answer my question: what is the harm in relisting? -- B2 C 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Your question could be asked in every move review. The focus of move reviews should be the propriety of the closing action, not the propriety of an alternate action. -- tariqabjotu 20:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Any question could be asked in any move review. The issue of the question's relevance may vary.

In this case, where we're at the review because the closer refused to revert a close as requested on the grounds that the only reason the request was even in the backlog was because the relist attempt was botched, the question about what harm there is in relisting is especially relevant. -- B2 C 21:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Botched, unnecessary according to two administrators, and done by an editor who is unhappy with the current state of the move request. -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Botched, period. Whether the relist is necessary is irrelevant. You're trying to apply a standard here that is never applied anywhere else. Relists are never necessary. Sometimes someone believes more time might benefit, and they relist. That's what happened in this case, but it was botched.

As to whether a relisting is done by someone who happens to be unhappy with the current state of the move request, that too is irrelevant. I genuinely believed more discussion would be helpful because of a specific issue that is relevant here, and I linked to it where I thought people interested in the issue would see it. Your refusal to reopen is nonsensical, unless you're trying to squelch more discussion because you're happy with the current state of the move request. -- B2 C 23:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You're reaching. The relisting option is not available so you can extend discussion until you get what you want; it's there to allow discussion to continue in the hope that consensus will become clearer. If you want to argue that consensus is not clear now or that I made an incorrect determination based on the information provided, you are free to do that. But to argue that the closure was improper simply because you wanted it relisted is absurd. And, of course, the suggestion in your last sentence is so baseless, serving only to deflect attention from your obvious stance on this matter, that I need not spend any time refuting it. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

B2C claims "I tried my best to advertise the discussion in an unbiased fashion at WT:AT to broaden input." If this is what he thinks is unbiased, painting the MOS as a potential battleground loser at the TITLE venue that he has pretty much controlled for about 6 years, I'll be monkey's uncle. I would have no problem supporting a change to MOS:CT to say to downcase prepositions of all lengths, but this obscure title is not even a plausible test case for adopting such a change to WP style. His constant efforts to chip away at the MOS, and to attract others like SmokeyJoe who like to do so, are tiresome. His argument that he inadvertantly screwed up the relist attempt is moot in the face of opposition from multiple editors to him doing any relist or close actions at all, given his extreme positions on controversial title issues. He should be sanctioned for relisting it, not coddled for screwing up the attempt. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I !voted for Ryulong's move but my vote clearly said I was not happy with MOS:CT (particularly for a Japanese song), Tariqabjotu was right not to count such a support. As User:Dicklyon I also would have no problem supporting a change to MOS:CT to say to downcase prepositions of all lengths, but also as Dicklyon this obscure (Japanese language) title is not even a plausible test case for adopting such a change to WP style. BTW I have requested an optional "language" field be added to to the single infobox at WikiProject Song, which is tangentially related to the title issue here. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  This has nothing really to do with prepositions but rather the way that the song's title is very clearly written in the English language.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 04:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A majority opposed the move, and their arguments were based in policy. Nothing to see here. -- BDD ( talk) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The question is about whether the close was premature given the ongoing discussion and the (botched attempt to) relist. -- B2 C 00:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to me that everyone commenting here participated in the requested move and are treating it as RM part 2.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 04:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I participated in the discussion and supported the move. The reason I endorse the close is that it never should have been listed for relisting because there was a consensus and had reached a reasonable conclusion. Two different admins closed the discussion and the fact that the first admin reversed their decision does not mean that the second admin's close is incorrect. Aspects ( talk) 04:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• As per my last comment, this reall just looks like the same people who commented in the move request coming here to reaffirm their stance. Is this really how it works? Is the nature of requested moves and move review that insular?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  And you're different because...? But, yes, this is a major flaw in the MR process; I feel that those who participated in the move request should not be permitted to participate in the move review, except to provide comments. Or, at the very least, they should not be permitted to participate without revealing that they were a participant in original request. That being said, for most move requests, it seems like the same people participating. -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  I never said I was different. Just pointing out an observation.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  I don't think this is a major flaw, as the Move Review closer should know how to weigh arguments that rehash the RM discussion against questions of process or the reading of consensus. Nobody should ever be prevented from participating, that is a bad road to take, and already there are few participants here. I do think that proper decorum (no rules) is that participants, including the RM nominator, MR nominator, and the closer, should try to be brief and leave the conversation open for outsiders to comment. For the closer in particular I recommend Meatball:DefendEachOther. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  Yes, the move review closer should be able to do that, but it certainly makes it harder when people write "Endorse" or "Overturn" without revealing their prior involvement in the move request. Without mentioning that point, the closer -- without going through the RM and matching names -- might count them as just another outside opinion. Here, though, I feel everyone, except you actually, has mentioned their involvement in the discussion. By the way, I'm not sure why you cited Meatball:DefendEachOther; I am very far from bludgeoning the conversation, and considering a move review is, by definition, an indictment of a closer's actions, it would seem silly for me to not explain my actions, particularly when directly asked questions. -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Note added above. I've not been in the habit of doing that, but probably it should always be done. I did not mean to suggest you were bludgeoning, certainly not. I may try to explain better on your talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close I see where Ryulong was coming from with the RM but consensus was clearly against a move (despite his good arguments). FWIW I do think the fact that the title is originally in English makes this a complex issue. Amakuru's position: "I do think the move is good, but I can't support it because it's counter to current policy" is my own. There may be room for a new MOS guideline for foreign songs with English titles. But under the current rules "Through" is capitalized (despite my own personal preferences I might add)-- Cailil ^talk 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  So yet again the advice I have been given to go forward with this is to suggest that a manual of style be changed rather than making the page an exception, when I have attempted this in the past and used the page as an example only to have my proposal shot down because there was no consensus to make an exception. How do we move forward when it's just a mobius strip of red tape?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 18:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  You'd need a string of examples (not just one exception) to show this as a form of systemic bias (inaccuracy). Certainly if you had them I'd support a change/addition to the MOS. Eurovision & Europop songs might be a source for such song titles-- Cailil ^talk 22:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  Didn't I do that in the WP:RM though?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - since the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. It is a little disturbing to see ridged adherence to any guideline in Wikipedia. MOS:CT says that that "Through" should be capitalized, so the permissive "should" give editors flexibility to decide on a case by case basis. Ryulong, SmokeyJoe, and In ictu oculi presented good, but slightly varying, reasons why "Through" should not be capitalized in the Journey Through the Decade article title. However, that position did not catch on and the general sense of agreement was that "Through" should be capitalized per MOS:CT. Just about all of the "Oppose" positions were in line with each other - a need to adhere to MOS:CT. Even Amakuru's neutral position was resigned to a position that "given that it's in the manual of style there's not much that can be done about it here." Endorse tariqabjotu's 15:06, 15 August 2013 close. The discussion was open for 11 days, so the close was not premature. Relisting merely adds to that 11 days, not restart the clock. A new move request should not be posted before 15 November 2013 - three months from the 15 August 2013 close. -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Lower Assam ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Sometime back, i had created an article name Lower Assam, for a region located in western part of Brahmaputra Valley in Assam state, along with an wikiproject.

Recently, i realised that Lower Assam is actually a name of old adminitrative division, which historically contains areas outside western Brahmaputra Valley; so i created an article Lower Assam Division, and eventually asked for move request to Western Assam.

My request was closed as no consensus, when i contacted closer, he due to lack of knowledge in subject, unable to help me, though i made it clear to him that, there is no proof of existance of any region name Lower Assam, as indirectly supported by main opposing user here and here. As an native of Western Assam, its difficult for me, to see article in misleading title.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close – It's very clear that there was no consensus to move. The next question you need to work on is whether you really want two articles, or whether you could cover both the region and the administrative district in one. It looks to me like a merge is in order, but then maybe a different split will make sense. Talk it out with the other editors who know something about the issue. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Only user (himself an native of Western Assam) i expected to discuss the issue is currently blocked. Sole help left now is people here. To summarise, my problem is Western Assam = Western part of Brahmaputra Valley and Lower Assam = Western Assam + Central Assam + Parts of Meghalaya. So, what can be possible solution of the issue. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Adroit-class destroyer ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Hardi-class destroyer ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Fantasque-class destroyer ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

The titles of these pages are incorrect, according to all the available sources. These pages were moved to the current contested titles a while ago without explanation or discussion, subject to an individual (and, as it turned out, unverifiable) opinion. This, and the wider issue, was discussed with the editor concerned, and at WT SHIPS, where the conclusion was that the changes were in error ( one comment in particular providing photographic evidence of the error and attributing it to a misreading of source material). Any one of these would be grounds for a bold move, but as it could hardly be called uncontroversial the matter was taken to RM.

The RM was closed with no move, due to no consensus (there were only three responses); however this closure does not take into account WP:RMCI, which suggests giving “due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions”, nor WP:CLOSE, which suggests discarding “those (arguments) that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious”

I have raised the matter with the closer ^archived, who is unwilling to change the close; therefore I am seeking a move review, as the current RM closure reinforces the previous out-of-process move, and makes it difficult to fix the problem in any legitimate way. Xyl 54 ( talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Weak nomination leads to unfocused discussion. "Correct names for these ships per sources" requires explicit listing of sources and quotations. Make it easier for readers to understand you logic. "Correct" is a strong word that needs precise substantiation. Linking to WP:RS, what is the point, are you expecting newcomers to come and read our policies and then do all the research and see if they come to the same conclusion? Take some time to prepare a better case, and then make it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Per SmokeyJoe. An assertion that a given name is more commonly used in reliable sources is not evidence. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was a wash - the only way to read broad consensus favors the move is by accepting the assertion as fact. We cannot fault the closer for failing to do that, nor can we accept him to do his own research. That's the job of the proposer and the proposal's supporters. -- B2 C 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Reply: Well, my apologies for any weakness in my nomination. The sources I was referring to are the ones on the article pages, which I had thought was self-evident: According to policy they should be what determines article titles, and even a cursory look would have confirmed what I was saying. So yes, I think I can reasonably expect anyone joining the discussion, and especially someone seeking to adjudge and close it, to do that much research.

And my purpose in mentioning WP SOURCE was simply to point out that the suggested move was in line with policy (something WP:RMCI says should be supported) while the only objection was deficient in that regard (something WP:CLOSE says is dismissable).

So if my reason for the RM was merely an assertion, it is easily verifiable; whereas the opposite assertion (that the previous, out-of-process mover was correct) is clearly not substantiated in the RM discussion itself or in the discussions linked.

And if "the only way to read broad consensus favors the move is by accepting the assertion as fact" (well, isn’t it?) the only way to interpret a rejection of the RM is as an endorsement of the out-of-process move that caused this mess in the first place. Is that what you are saying?

So however weak my nomination may have been, the case for leaving the articles where they are is considerably weaker; and whatever problem moving the pages (or even agreeing to a move) might cause (and no-one has demonstrated that my assertion is wrong) the problem caused by leaving them where they are is greater. Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply