Islamic terrorism ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

The RM to Islamist terrorism (discussion here) was rejected by Red Slash despite predominant (4:3) support of experienced editors and despite the move going to what was argued to be a more specific and accurate title for the topic. Closing argument finished by saying that "I just needed some sources to make me understand that this title is factually wrong" but, even if this were an issue, I do not think that this would discount the positive arguments that were made that the move was to a more specific and accurate title. In accordance to Wikipedia:Move review#Instructions, I have contacted the closing editor here where, as in the move request, I explained that "if there were a commonly used term available such as Christianist or Jewishist I would advocate the use of these terms as well as in connection to related subjects of terrorism. ..." I do not think that we can persist in the use of non-specific titles such as Islamic terrorism just because editors do not have available a more accurate title than Christian terrorism. In response to my direct appeal Red Slash said: " I'm a Christian and I wholly disavow any connection to what's placed in that article--so if we should move the one article to avoid associations with standard Islam, why would we keep the title for the other article where it's associated with everyday Christianity?" This move, if any suitable can be found, I would support. However, the lack of a suitable alternative title here is, I think, scant reason for rejecting a move.

The request close a perceived need was noted regarding a need for reliable sources relating to title usage. As noted towards the end of my discussion with the closer, "I did a simple search on terrorism isn't Islamic and the first result from Time magazine is titled Obama Is Right Not to Talk About ‘Islamic’ Terrorism."

I also expressed that, if there were a perceived need for references to be quoted, then this might best be presented as a comment in the normal way and presented the following: "::On the issue of sources, specialists in issues of extremist terrorism such as Quilliam (think tank) make predominant reference to "Islamist terrorism". site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamist terrorism" gets "33 results" while site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamic terrorism" gets "1 result" That one result was in a quote from musician Salman Ahmad of Pakistani rock band Junoon who was quoted as saying, "I also think there’s a failure in the media to research about the conflict, instead opting to present it as general Islamic terrorism.""

I honestly don't think that it would be hard to find further references if such were required. I also find the titles Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism etc. to be objectionable and, should suitable destination titles be found, then I think that similar moves should also be made. A more accurate title is available for this article which should be moved. Greg Kaye 10:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Could have been worded better, but there is no way this could have been closed in favour of the proposed move. I found the oppose arguments (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) far more convincing than the supports. Number 5 7 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment (edit/i.e.: "Endorse" with concerns with closing statement) First this close is a bit stale given that it is a no consensus result and that means a new move request can be made. Given the number of past RM on the topic referenced early on though I would suggest waiting a bit more. The result of the discussion seemed to be no consensus and this is mostly an endorse of that but the close read more like a !vote than a close. It might be good to look at a wider venue on if it is better to use the term Islamist or Islamic, as this seems like it should be handled by guidelines for similiar reasons to the BLP and the use of gender presentation for pronouns in the case of trans*. PaleAqua ( talk) 15:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closing statement wanders into the closer's personal opinions, which is not appropriate for a close, should be reserved for the discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "personal opinions". Red Slash 01:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Start with the three instances of "I". The close should not be about the thinking of the closer. It should be based on the discussion and applicable policy. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I still haven't found even one. Red Slash 05:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer - come on! You cannot simply assert that "Islamic" is a loaded or imprecise term. You have to give some form of backing for that. A bunch of people asserted that it was, and some other people asserted that it wasn't. And while everyone was out there making assertions, someone actually mentioned a policy on Wikipedia, which is WP:CONSISTENCY. I didn't want to just leave a one-sentence close that would leave the proposer with no idea what to do next time. Now he knows for next time--you can't just assert things apropos of no sourcing or backing in policy whatsoever. I have absolutely no idea how people might take the close as a vote. I don't even know how I would have !voted! How could I possibly have formed any opinion whatsoever? There were no sources to draw an opinion from, and no real link to any policy (other than the shout-out given to WP:CONSISTENCY, which I think anyone would agree is a minor point compared to the issues asserted in the nomination) to help me make an opinion. I would love someone to tell me how they think I would have !voted, because I really am not sure which way I would have leaned. Red Slash 01:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close The reasons for not moving were clear; no reliable source was provided. Plus Islamic terrorism is the more common name. Mbcap ( talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I can see why some might feel the proposed title is a better one, but no coherent argument was presented in the debate as to how that might fit in with any of the rules at WP:AT. The support !votes seemed to generally hinge around the notion that the current title is not neutral, and might be offensive to Muslims. Perhaps so, but per WP:POVTITLE indicates that where a name is commonly used in reliable sources, NPOV does not come into effect for article titles. So it was incumbent on those supporting to come up with an argument as to why the current name is not the common one, which they failed to do. The closer had no choice but to say no consensus (given that the oppose votes also didn't appeal to any particular evidence based arguments).  —  Amakuru ( talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Slightly off-topic, but assuming that the name was determined to be non-neutral than what POVTITLE seems to state that a redirect would be in order, not that the article would at a non-neutral name. PaleAqua ( talk) 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

    @ PaleAqua: No, I think the article can be at a non-neutral name. The text in question is: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." The examples given are Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal. The stuff about redirects (which seems to occupy more space than the actual main POVTITLE explanation) is to do with exception cases, like Antennagate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)‎ reply

    Yes but those cases are for either a single common name or proper name which wouldn't apply in this case. PaleAqua ( talk) 04:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

    True. WP:POVNAME offers no opinion as to what to do if there are two common names, and the more common of the two happens to be POV.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. This appears to be more attempting to re-argue the original issue than to say that the closer made an improper close. Also, 4 to 3 is in no way "predominant" support of anything, and RM discussions aren't supposed to be votes anyway. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 02:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Star Wars (film) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Number 57 was unaware of of significant additional information not discussed in the RM:

The pages that the requested moves were dealing with received a lot of opposition citing common name, but I have found additional N gram statistics that disprove the opposition. They need to be considered. Also, the WikiProject for Star Wars was not properly informed as a whole, so I assume the participants in the discussion may have been especially conservative over the original trilogy. The possible bias in the opposition may be overturned. If there is bias, but I believe the statistics I have found are solid enough for discussion:

In the ngram for the Empire Stikes back, usage of "The Empire Strikes Back" has been in heavy decline from 1999 to 2008. The decline is apparent in the corpus English shown here, in the corpus English Fiction shown here, in the corpus American English shown here, in the corpus British English shown here, in the corpus American English (2009) shown here, in the corpus British English (2009) shown here, in the corpus English (2009) shown here, in the corpus English Fiction (2009) shown here, and in the corpus English One Million (2009) shown here.

Assuming that by searching "Star Wars Episode V" (which is the max limit of words you can search on ngrams) it has an obvious relation to the full title Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back, the following results are revealed. The term has based in great increase over the years in the corpus American English shown here, and in the corpus English shown here. All other corpuses do not have any results for them.

Based on its decline in all corpuses of English, the Empire Strikes Back alone is NOT the common name.

I performed the same search for Star Wars Episode VI Return of the Jedi. The results show an increase in Star Wars Episode VI in the corpuses American English shown here, the corpus English shown here, again no results for other corpuses. Return of the Jedi as the title is shown in decline in all corpuses (except English Fiction) just as the Empire Strike Back was. English One Million (2009) shows decline here. English Fiction (2009) shows decline here. English (2009) shows decline here. British English (2009) shows a decline here. American English (2009) shows a decline here. English Fiction shows a decline but a slight return to increase shown here. In the English corpus, it shows a decline here. British English shows decline here. American English shows decline here.

Again, based on these results, Return of the Jedi alone is not the common name.

I did not look for decline in "Star Wars" as term because it would be impossible to know for sure if it included only the 1977 film in the results. But I did find that the term Star Wars Episode IV is increasing in the corpuses English (shown here) and American English. (Shown here).

The RM should be reopened and relisted. I did not discuss the close with the closing administrator because I feel the discussion has been over with just a little too long but still soon enough for a move review. I realize I should have done this earlier, but I see no reason this move review can't be considered. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close First note a no-consensus close does not prevent a future requested move, though it is slightly questionable based on the wording if this is a "Not Moved" or "No consensus to move". @ Number 57: I hope you don't mind that I echo the request in one of the other move reviews below of being clearer between the two cases? Given that some of the comments indicate fatigue on this issue, I would suggest waiting a while before trying again. Second, move review is for reviewing the close, not for rearguing the discussion. Closes should considered the information presented or referenced in the discussion. I also don't see the concern that the wikiproject was not informed given that the discussion happened on one of the main pages for the film and thus should have been visible to anyone watching that page. Note also that conciseness, not just common name was used as arguments against the move, so even if the n-grams etc. above had been made and changed the common name argument, it is still likely that a strong oppose argument via concise would have still have been made likely still resulting in a no-consensus move. PaleAqua ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ PaleAqua: Yes, I have changed the way I denote no consensus results since those comments were made. Number 5 7 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Recommend against repeating soon, and against such a wide grouping again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse "Number 57 was unaware of of significant additional information not discussed in the RM" - game, set, match, it's all over. Closers cannot magically absorb all the information that exists in the universe on the topics at hand. They must only analyze the arguments that actually were made. It would have been drastically counter to policy for the closer to integrate the information listed here, since it wasn't actually brought up in the RM. Save it for next time (I don't mean that snidely or sarcastically--seriously, save it for next time). Red Slash 01:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per Red Slash's arguments.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. This appears to be more attempting to re-argue the original issue than to say that the closer made an improper close, and it is certainly not proper to criticize the closer for ignoring evidence that wasn't presented in the actual discussion. In fact, had they done their own research as the nominator wishes and proceeded to close based on that, that would be exactly the kind of thing that would be brought here and overturned in short order. Looking over the discussion again, this was not a case where both sides had a great deal of support - consensus was strongly against the move. On the other hand, the chief (and practically sole) proponent of the move was making comments like this one apparently out of frustration that the consensus was not going as they would have liked. What else could the closer have done? Egsan Bacon ( talk) 02:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

War in Afghanistan (2001–14) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

This move review only recieved the input of six editors, three of whom were canvassed. You can see this on the talk page. Supossedly this RM was discussed by 23 people in total but the RM recived only three editor's input. The reasoning for the RM's decision to move was that there was editor consensus but this is totally false as, a subsequent discussion showed that there is no such consensus. You can see here [1] that editors support a merger so how can it be possible that there was consensus that it should be moved originally. Also the discussion before this here [2] was closed by an involved editor who himself/herself was against the merger. Due to the canvassing and the input of only three editors, this RM should be rendered null and void and the subsequent propse merger closure by an involved admin should be discounted. A new RM should be started so that we can build consensus on what is the most appropriate direction in which to take the page. Mbcap ( talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• relist. We're in a bit of a mess at the moment. The original discussion seemed to indicate consensus for a move, but there was sufficient contention that it was rejected as an uncontroversial move. Then a dedicated move discussion was set up, for which input was canvassed, and closed after five days as seemingly unanimous consensus on the issue. I believe this to have been a false consensus.
  When after the discussion a wider merge discussion of the new War in Afghanistan (2015–present) was started and more outside opinions came in, consensus became far less clear. This is compounded by some opposition to merging that referred back to the RM as indicating consensus that this is indeed the way forward. I'm in a bind on what is best at the moment, my own strong opinion that this is not the way to treat the subject makes it hard for me to look at the discussion from a neutral perspective, but I feel there have been sufficient irregularities to step on the break before overhauling our article structure on the conflict. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but overturn ( and allow for new RM ) The RM was closed 25 days ago and a subsequent move/merge was closed as no consensus. While the original discussion was a bit long ago for a MR, the new discussion shows that the consensus was not as strong as it appeared originally, as the results appear to have been muddied. I do not think the original close was wrong on behalf of the closer even as it became clearer after that there might be issues with the consensus. As previous relist results of older RM from MR have been closed too quickly as the appear backlogged when reopened, I suggest that the RM be overturned and a new RM be opened ( which notices also to the 2015-present article. ) PaleAqua ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note also WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." A no consensus result shortly after a move typically means the article should go back to the long-standing title. While in this case the second discussion was technically a merge discussion, it was really over the same issues. This is the main reason I think that the move should be reverted, regardless on if the first discussion was properly or improperly canvased. PaleAqua ( talk) 07:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Revert move, first let me say that I am not an uninvolved party as I am the one who proposed the merger of the two articles after finding out after the fact that a new article was created and the article "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)" was moved. As stated before, and as shown on the article in questions talk page. An admin still requested that a move request be made as the discussion about the possibility of a new article was not seen as unanimous. A move request was started, but there was improper canvassing done from the beginning of the move request, of only those editors who supported the creation of a 2015-present article to begin with. No other notifications were put out. The admin, seeing a unanimous vote for a move consented.

Therefore, the move was fruit from a poisoned tree. Using that logic, the move should be reverted, and a new consensus formed as to whether there should be a single article or two articles. There is presently an ongoing debate as to whether there is a single conflict or two separated conflicts divided by a change of ISAF to RS.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Martijn Hoekstra. There's enough confusion with the canvassed votes, that starting afresh seems prudent. This is not a negative reflection on the closer, who acted in good faith on the available information, but I think it's best overall.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 19:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just wanted to say the following as I did at the discussion page of the article when the issue of alleged vote-stacking was brought up. Before the vote was made for a move, two discussions had already been ongoing for almost a month and ended with a large majority of editors in consensus for the move and only one editor (RightCowLeftCoast) in continues opposition. When I asked an admin at the time for the move as an uncontroversial one, an un-involved editor jumped in and claimed that there was no consensus on the issue and that it was speedy (despite the discussion going on for 3 weeks), so he rejected my request for a move. However, when I talked to the admin later on and pointed out that a majority (12 vs 4) was in agreement for a move (based on sources) the admin admitted he did not actually see the discussion (missed it). He said that he would wait another day or two and that it would be good for it to go through the proper move request. So based on our talk I got a feeling it was a mere formality and done deal and wasn't aware that I would be accused of vote stacking. I was also taking into account the fact that the discussion was going on for 3 weeks and no more oppose arguments were showing up for some time (only support). Also, I would point out that only a few of the pinged editors had shown up for the vote, and half of those who voted in support of the move were not pinged. Still, like I made it clear there, I apologize in this regard if I mis-stepped unintentionally. Was never my intention. Sorry! Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 05:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

A vote which was improperly canvassed. Therefore the RM was voted on primarily by those supporting the move and the creation of a 2015-present article. There was no attempt to reach out to myself, or others who opposed the creation of a 2015-present article or any larger population of Wikipedians of associated Wikiprojects that are connected to the article. Therefore, the consensus that was created in that RM was Fruit of the poisonous tree. Since then a significant number of individuals have joined the conversation, and Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Follow up, the alleged 12 to 4 consensus appears to have changed significantly. Therefore, at minimum the move should be relisted, if not reversed entirely.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Like I said, only a couple of those who were pinged responded, while half of those who voted were not pinged. Also, nothing alleged about 12 vs 4. 12 vs 4 is fact which can be seen from the discussion. Like WP policy says, consensus can subsequently change like you yourself say, but at that point in time, consensus was in favor of the name change. Subsequent discussions for a change can be made, but a new consensus is needed to implement a new change. In any case, I have discussed this with you at large length, so I'm not going to rehash it. I made my comments. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:!VOTE. The numbers don't matter, the strength of the reasoning why someone supports or opposes an action does. Therefore claiming 12 v 4 has no merit. What has merit is the reasoning why, which I found weak. The creation of the 2015-present article was bold and was based on using recent claims of the end of a war (source taken from the 2015 article), with later published sources showing that the war did not in fact end.

I get the reasoning why there was a view, and the want to accept, that war was over. But wishful thoughts does not facts make, and makes for poor encyclopedia articles, even if well meaning. It's OK to be wrong.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Funny you mention WP:NOTDEMOCRACY when you were the one who asked for a straw poll. Coltsfan ( talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You must be confusing me with someone else. I am not, nor ever will be Buckshot06.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

My mistake, but you supported it while you thought it would get to where you wanted, only changing your opinion later. Coltsfan ( talk) 21:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Please, do not accuse me of actions that I did not do. It is rude and uncivil. Also please see WP:AVOIDYOU. I stated clearly, that while I placed by name in the support column that I did not support the straw poll. But that has no bearing on this discussion. And therefore I request that an admin collapse this entire sub-conversation as non-relevant.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Three different discussions (one of them with full consensus), weeks of talks and a 'straw poll', still not enough. Use whatever argument you want but not the "there was not enough discussion". Why such crusade to revert the article's name? I really don't get it. I've never seen anything like that. Coltsfan ( talk) 12:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This is the same discussion, but a different phase in the discussion? ducks Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: A recent discussion Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#New sub-article covering initial period is talking about splitting the article up in a different way noting WP:SIZERULE. PaleAqua ( talk) 07:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The question isn't whether this article should have sub-articles, the question is whether the subject had ended in December 2014 or not. I am of the opinion that it has not ended, and that the majority of reliable sources are also of that view.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Talk:Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

I manually, boldly, merged a talk page that wasn't moved to the new article's name, where there was discussion at both pages. I think what I've done is OK, but I wanted to report it somewhere to ensure it is reviewed. :-) Mark Hurd ( talk) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

While reviewing a number of "bad/missing" Talk page moves, I determined the real problem with this page was that it was "manually" moved back to its original name (just by editing existing redirects) by Wjs13 ( talk · contribs) on 20:07, 22 October 2008‎ and 20:07, 22 October 2008‎. The talk pages were not so simply swapped at the time. Mark Hurd ( talk) 11:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Markhurd: - I think the correct procedure in this instance is to perform a WP:HISTMERGE - it will require an administrator to carry that out, and there are instructions at that page on how to request one. This page is for assessing closures of formal move requests rather than assessing moves per se. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Amakuru: I will request the HistMerge. I knew this wasn't the most correct forum, but where should I have put this other than just on the talk page in question? Mark Hurd ( talk) 13:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Walter White (Breaking Bad) ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

Closed prematurely, the consensus to move was nearly reached; I tried reasoning with the closing editor here, but was met with a firm refusal. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - Seems to be clearly a no-consesus result. Note a non-consensus close does not prohibit a future requested move. But it is probably best to wait a while before trying again, especially given the strong WP:RECENTISM arguments against the move. PaleAqua ( talk) 04:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ Chunk5Darth: Looks like steps 3, 4 and optional 5 at Wikipedia:Move review#Steps to list a new review request got missed. Could you complete those steps? PaleAqua ( talk) 06:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Did step 3 and 4 myself. PaleAqua ( talk) 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – looks like it had enough time, and clearly no consensus for a primarytopic claim. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Clearly a "no consensus", far from consensus to move. Don't repeat the RM for at least two months, and even then, ensure a more comprehensive nomination statement. The closing statement was reasonable, and the closer's response on his talk page was perfectly reasonable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Evidence was presented in the move request that clearly showed the Breaking Bad character is the primary topic. That evidence was flat out ignored by those opposing the move. The opposition arguments centered on older=primary, which is not policy, and WP:RECENTISM, an essay on article content that doesn't apply here (and is an essay anyway, not a guideline). -- Calidum 16:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented that draws no comment from any other person can't be interpreted as persuasive. The evidence you mention appears to be page view stats. Page view stats do not per se demonstrate a primary topic. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Weird, I always assumed the idea of having a primary topic was to make it easier for readers to find the page they want. I guess we can ignore what people are looking for then, because fuck them, right? -- Calidum 22:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

A common view that I still find mystifying. Removing disambiguation makes it *harder* to find the page you want, and *harder* to be confident you have the link to the page you want. It also confuses titling with search engines, whether the Wikipedia internal search engine, or external, like google. Whichever you use when looking for something, you get a list of titles of likely candidates, and the disambiguation helps. Assuming 100% want what 80% want may help the 80% from having to click again or to learn to search unambiguously, but is very unhelpful for the minority. The idea of having a primary topic to make it easier for readers, at the expense of meaningful titles, or logical consistent titling, is plain wrong. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - User:Number 57 has done an excellent job closing RMs everywhere I've seen, but I definitely would suggest that in cases like this where there is no consensus either way, a better closing summary would be

No consensus to move.

rather than

not moved. No consensus to ...

because it makes it much clearer whether or not a consensus was found in opposition to the move. (Of course, the page is not moved in any case. I disagree with the assessment of the !voters but I agree with the close.) Red Slash 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the oppose arguments, that the Breaking Bad character does not yet meet long term significance are clearly valid, and they clearly counteract the equally valid support arguments that the character is primary by common usage. I agree with Red Slash's comment about clarity - when I'm closing an RM as not moved, I always differentiate in the bold text between Not moved and No consensus to move. They are subtly different, but have the same result.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There were valid arguments on both sides, and there was no consensus. That is also the outcome Number 57 summarized. This is not RM2. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. The assessment by the closer that there was no consensus was a reasonable reading of the discussion. I am not sure why this request suggests the RM was closed prematurely, as it was open for eight days, or how the requester determined that the consensus to move was nearly reached, as of the eight people to respond, four were in favor and four against, and there is no obvious "swing" in the order of !votes to suggest what further respondents would have said had the discussion been left open. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 03:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

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

A move was requested to move Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure). I opposed the move, but I acknowledge there was consensus to move it. The issue now is which page should be called Daniel. The closer determined that the move was to be from Daniel (name) to Daniel. The thing is, only two editors were in favour of this, while two other editors explicitly argued for Daniel (disambiguation) to be the "main" ( Daniel) page. So I am posting it here because (a) there doesn't seem to be consensus for this particular move, and (b) in such situations, where there is no clear primary topic (between the name, the biblical person, and the biblical book) the normal practice is to make the disambiguation page the main page. Thus, the closer's rationale to move Daniel (name) to Daniel rather than Daniel (disambiguation) to Daniel seems very weak. See also the John page, where the disambiguation page is the "main" one. St Anselm ( talk)

Various articles about popular names refer to the article about the name, whereas others refer to a disambiguation page. Though StAnselm has alluded to a trichotomy "between the name, the biblical person, and the biblical book", articles such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John don't give any precedence to the biblical character or the associated book. Though there are some exceptions, there isn't a particularly compelling reason for very common names to default to articles about biblical characters. There is some variation about whether to use the name-based article or a disambiguation page, however there doesn't seem to be any indication that the disambiguation page is the "normal practice".-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

So with three of names you mention, the main page is the disambiguation page. I'm not saying here that the biblical character article should take precedence; I'm saying that Daniel would be in the same category as the ones you mention. (Unlike Andrew, for example, where there is no biblical book.) St Anselm ( talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: I have started a move request, Luke (disambiguation) → Luke. St Anselm ( talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Further note: A discussion is now underway to split the name page into Daniel (given name) and Daniel (surname). St Anselm ( talk) 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

There is a tendency for names that also have other meanings (e.g. mark, john, bob) to have the disambiguation page as the main page, but generally the name is the primary article for words that are only used as a proper noun (e.g. Michael, Chris, Joseph).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I also think the move should have left Daniel as disambig page, and discussed it with the closer, getting him to at least add to his close statement, but before I noticed this review I started a new RM discussion about that, at Talk:Daniel#Requested move 7 February 2015. That discussion will probably converge more quickly than the typical move review. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Pottawatomie Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| archive| watch) ( RM)

A somewhat ridiculuous non-admin close reversing a unaminous Requested Move discussion, converting one support to an oppose, in direct opposition to the responder's opinion that the previous closer erred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Closer note: I'm happy to discuss on my user talk page (which I believe you should have done first). I think my closure rationale is clear, although I welcome a review and any questions that may arise.

In addition to the closure rationale, just including a set of points to add context to the above:

• The RM in question was identical to a previous one that had closed only two weeks earlier.
• No new arguments were presented in the new RM.
• Only two new editors commented in the new RM.
• The previous RM was closed with no consensus, and I think it is reasonable to say that editors in that RM assumed their comments would be taken into account (in fact, one of the opposers posted in the second RM without explicitly supporting or opposing). Not all supporters posted in the second RM either.
• The support (out of two) that I "converted" to an oppose came from an editor who indeed opposed the move but thought the first discussion should have been closed as move. I think it was reasonable for me to consider this.
• If I had closed the original RM I might indeed have called it consensus to move. However, given that it closed as no consensus, closing the second RM as move would involve in part overriding the previous closer (again, especially because no new arguments were presented). I could see this move review resulting in overturn of the previous close on the merits (pinging Cuchullain), but even then I couldn't have closed differently myself.

All that said, I really don't see why the capitalization is such a big deal, and I'm happy to go along with anything that avoids unnecessary drama. :-) Sunrise ( talk) 03:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sunrise, I guess for want of a nail, the horse-shoe was lost; for want of a horse-shoe ... We've managed to get a pretty good house style on the English Wikipedia—one that avoids the over-formatting you see rife in some technical docs, advertising, etc. It's ideal for our international non-expert readership. And we seem to be at one in this with large proportions of publishing houses out there. That's one thing. More relevant here is the procedural issue. So ... I agree with Dicklyon's points above. Tony (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I could probably have written a rationale for consensus as well, and I guess it would probably have been less likely to be challenged. :-) I actually started with that, but on further analysis I felt that "no consensus" would be the best alternative as long as I was taking the previous close as a starting point. (And after that - like I said, the deciding issue for me was how I treated the comment "procedural support" from an editor who said they nonetheless opposed the outcome. WP:BURO came to mind even though I didn't cite it explicitly.) But in any case, if the first couple of uninvolved editors who comment here have the same opinion, that would be more than enough for me to overturn my close. Sunrise ( talk) 05:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn NAC close as a contested NAC, but close instead as too soon after the previous close. Starting a new RM so soon is disrespectful to the previous discussion, tenditious, exhausting to other Wiipedians. Attempting to find a consensus through exhausting previous opponents on unimportant questions is offensive. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn ( or reopen for new close -- but given the 9 days without comment between the last vote and the NAC close I don't think a full relist is necessary ) While the time between the previous RM and this one was on the short side, a no consensus close does not normally prevent a future RM. The arguments for the move were strong and the only real comments against was a procedural request that the previous RM should have come here and an support that mentioned a personal preference in the opposite direction. However, in most cases when a no-consensus close that is over 1 month that is brought here the result is a recommendation to just open a new RM. For Ajax's comment to be taken as an oppose it would be similar to taking my !vote here as an endorse because I wish the Wikipedia used title-case for page names and section headers assuming the software changes were made to allow lower case links from the bodies to work without redirects. PaleAqua ( talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (or reopen) per User:PaleAqua. I supported the move but muddied the waters by mentioning that I personally oppose such moves. In this case, my personal opinion had no basis in policy, precedent, expediency, consistency, or any other relevant principle. It was WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I sincerely support the move as the nominator and supporters in the first and the second RM had a preponderance of support and sounder arguments. User:SmokeyJoe has a point about following and RM with another but, in this case, it happened and the result was additional support for a move. The nominator has followed correct procedure to a T and his/her arguments were resoundingly affirmed by other users and yet somehow s/he can't catch a break. —  AjaxSmack  01:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

That's fair. I interpreted your comment as carrying some of the weight from the opposing rationales in the previous RM, so thanks for the clarification. Given this, I am more than happy to overturn my close as consensus to move. Sunrise ( talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply