Jump to content

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2025 January Move review archives 2025 March >

2025 February

[edit]

In Search of Lost Time (closed)

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In Search of Lost Time (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The arguments against moving overwhelmingly had no basis in policy or misrepresented policy (such as interpreting WP:USEENGLISH to mean that titles of articles should be in English, when in fact it says that article titles should reflect English-language sources). I'd like to be able to relist the discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It was already relisted once and closed over two months ago now, so I'm not sure a relist will be very helpful. I also don't agree with the premise that the arguments against had no basis in policy, especially Roman Spinner's argument, which demonstrated that while scholars may use the French title, that is not appropriate on its own for determining the COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an endorse is better, but I'm fine with a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » Good read of consensus that led to a reasonable closure that is within the guide's purview. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus <uninvolved>. The closer should have discounted at least a couple of the non-policy-based !votes, and that would put us in no-consensus territory. (WP:UE means "use English sources", not "use English names".) I agree with SportingFlyer that a relist wouldn't be useful at this point, so I'd just overturn to no consensus; some say that's a distinction without a difference, but it does at least make renomination more of an option, and we're not so busy here that we can't do the job right. (If there is another RM down the road, I hope someone brings up the ngrams, which are pretty interesting.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus", per Extraordinary Writ (and some of MR nominator's argument). [Uninvolved.] It's correct that the misinterpretations of WP:UE should have been discounted. That said, just going directly into another RM is a poor idea. There are at least 4 potential names, and research needs to be done to establish whether any of them (regardless of their origin language) rise to WP:COMMONNAME level in English-language reliable sources, and this should use more than just ngrams (which seem increasingly polluted with self-published junk, especially if not constrained to pre-2019 results), but also things like Google Scholar search which indexes mostly higher-quality sources and permits us usually to see the context (e.g. to weed out false positives). Present a solid case for a particular name, so that consensus can be reached more quickly and firmly based on evidence instead of subjectively and circularly re-argued based on emotion and pseudo-evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Obvious consensus against the move. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Move Review is not Requested Move Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Even if you discard the UE votes, Roman Spinner's argument, that the French title has never been used for an English translation of the book, remains pretty convincing. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse <uninvolved>. Clearly no consensus for this move. Whether there's no consensus at all or consensus against, the result is the same, no move. In any case, although there's no set time limit for a move review (should there be?), two months seems like too long a gap for a relisting. Station1 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Białystok City Stadium (closed)

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Białystok City Stadium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closer has declared a "no consensus" on this RM, which is fair enough (although for the record I actually supported the option of moving to "Chorten Arena" instead). However, what doesn't seem correct is that having made the no-consensus determination, they've reverted the title back to a name which was last used in October 2020, determining that to be the "stable" title. When I queried this, they cited the fact that the page has been moved multiple times in the past year as justification for determining that there is no stable version at all and that they were invoking the clause at WP:NOCONSENSUS which deems that the first non-stub title is to be used.

It's true that there have been a lot of moves recently:

Move history
When Mover From To Reason
18:17, 24 October 2020 Najgorszakomediaromantyczna Białystok City Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok)
11:18, 25 May 2024 Paradygmaty Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok Stadium per: 1) WP:UE, 2) Talk:Kazimierz_Górski_Stadium, 3) convention Wrocław Stadium
18:16, 30 August 2024 Paradygmaty Białystok Stadium Białystok Municipal Stadium Per stadiums full name per source
07:17, 29 October 2024 FromCzech Białystok Municipal Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): potentially controversial move Tag: pageswap GUI
22:13, 29 October 2024 Paradygmaty Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok Municpal Stadium I am reverting the recent moves by user FromCzech. This move is unsubstantiated and does not reflect community consensus. The change appears to be disruptive and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for justified editorial actions. FromCzech should have initiated a discussion before making such a unilateral move, particularly given that the title has been stable for several months. I have initiated a form...
08:31, 31 October 2024 Jay8g Białystok Municpal Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Misspelled: Not taking sides in the ongoing dispute, but we can't leave the page at an obviously misspelled name
00:35, 27 November 2024 Amakuru Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok Municipal Stadium completed RM on the talk page
11:09, 27 November 2024 Amakuru Białystok Municipal Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Move back to original name following vacating is the close and relist of RM
11:10, 3 January 2025 Footballnerd2007 Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok Municipal Stadium As per successful move request
11:24, 7 January 2025 Amakuru Białystok Municipal Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok) revert to original name following vacating is the close and relist of RM
08:36, 30 January 2025 Paradygmaty Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok Municipal Stadium completed RM on the talk page
09:08, 30 January 2025 Amakuru Białystok Municipal Stadium Stadion Miejski (Białystok) rv move: you can't close your own RM
10:06, 20 February 2025 DrKay Stadion Miejski (Białystok) Białystok City Stadium Perform requested move, see talk page

However, as we can see here, other than a five-month period following an undiscussed move last May - which was then reverted in October per WP:RMUM - and then a series of moves back and forth as the RM was variously closed and reopened, the page has otherwise been stable at the Stadion Miejski (Białystok) name for the vast majority of the past four years and that name is therefore the clear stable title. Since there was no consensus, it should revert back to that name. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Enforce no consensus It's clearly a no consensus and should be treated as a not moved, but the version the closer moved to is clearly not the stable title as it was stable for four years and is neither a common name nor a correct translation. It's a bad enough decision to be TROUTable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion, 20,000 ghits indicated that it was a common name. Paradygmaty was the only editor who complained that City Stadium was an incorrect translation but that was countered by FromCzech who said it was "the more accurate", usernamekiran who said it was "common and natural" and Amakaru who said Municipal Stadium was "a made-up Wikipedia translation not found in any sources". Three to one against is not something a closer can ignore without an extraordinarily strong rationale. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nobody in the discussion who explicitly favoured moving back to Białystok City Stadium so I'm not sure where your "three to one" figures come from. And FromCzech noted that name merely to point out that it was a more common name than the proposed Białystok Municipal Stadium, while their vote was clearly for Chorten Arena. But none of that matters because your close didn't assert that there was such a consensus, it merely said that there was no consensus. And having determined that, you then reverted to an old title that was manifestly not the most-recent stable title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was. I am only refuting SportingFlyer's contention that it "is neither a common name nor a correct translation." You agree with me that it is not a consideration in the close, so don't pretend it is. DrKay (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn effect of no consensus. I agree with the view that the title from 2020–2024 was the most recent stable title. Admittedly there's no clear dividing line on what counts as stable, and time is not the only factor, but I think this is on the stable side of the line. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough call! « uninvolved » Very tough call. We are compelled to decide between the ideas of two editors whom we revere and admire. Definitely agree that "no consensus" is the correct read on this RM; however, our choice is between the first stable title that the RM closer sees as the correct outcome per WP:RMCIDC, and the title cited by the nom of this review to be the "most recent" stable title. Hmmm. "When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title." I'm leaning toward the stability of the title that the nom points out as the "most recent" stable title, "Stadion Miejski (Białystok)". For now, that is the highest and best title. And with all the "most recent" contentiousness of this poor article-title issue, I think that a 3-month moratorium on formal RM discussion would give editors time to think their consensus-building thoughts through thoroughly together with some INformal discussion. All eyes on this one! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of No Consensus, and the history shows that there has been no consensus over a few years. I have not reviewed the history of names in detail to try to determine what the stable title is. I do not really understand why the dispute over the selected title is that important, if all of the previous titles exist as redirects. The purpose of the title and of the redirects is to enable a reader to find the article quickly. Can a Request for Comments, which is better advertised than a Requested Move, be used to resolve a title dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" but overturn the oldest-name reversion and use the actually long-term stable one. Use the one that was stable for around 4 years, especially since the one reverted to by the closer had little support in the discussion. I.e., this has had an effect like "If you and your sister can't agree on whether to have cake or cookies for dessert, I'm going to make you both chew on a bar of soap instead!"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to Stadion Miejski (Białystok) (uninvolved). Four years is long enough to establish a stable title, within the meaning of the guideline. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. <uninvolved> The close and move back to the original title were entirely reasonable. That is not to say that a decision to move to the 2020 title might not also have been reasonable, but there is nothing so clear cut about the definition of "stable" as it applies to these particular circumstances that we can say the result is obviously wrong. As a thoughtful, reasoned close, not obviously contrary to policy, it should not be overturned. Station1 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

1925 tri-state tornado outbreak (closed)

[edit]
  • 1925 tri-state tornado outbreak – Endorsed – but only barely. Essentially this boils down to the disparate nature of the opposes here, and the extent to which they are recapitulating the arguments of the RM discussion (which is not the purpose of the review). I agree with SportingFlyer that points made in the close would probably have been better made as a !vote, but even with this it is still within the ambit of the closer to bring in WP:P&Gs not considered by those in the discussion if they are highly relelvant, and the consensus of those endorsing the close was that this is what happened. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1925 tri-state tornado outbreak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Closer strung together a bunch of unrelated arguments and seemed to WP:SUPERVOTE (at least from what I see re-reading the discussion); was challenged by me and Aviationwikiflight on DrKay's talk page. I counted four opposes, one strongly, and four lowercase of "tri-state" supports. Closer also used reasonings from opposers (Chicdat's recentism concern in particular) and somehow used that to justify keeping the year in the title, which opposers were against. EF5 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus: pretty clear SUPERVOTE, it was determined, especially in the later votes, that the outbreak was the primary topic. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close. The opening party asked for the year to be included in the title on the basis that it was not the primary topic.[1] I closed the discussion on the same basis,[2] and therefore added the year as s/he had requested. I agree that there were 4 opposers, but there were 6 editors in favor of adding the year, of which the opening party was one [EF5, BarrelProof, Dicklyon, Tony, Cinderella157 and Extraordinary Writ]. The opening party appears to be confused. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not confused, I’m listing what I think was an improper closure, regardless of outcome. EF5 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the year added or not? DrKay (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also never supported the lowercasing of “trị-state”, which is the reason I’m bringing it here. EF5 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were one of 3 editors opposing lower case, but you say yourself that there were 4 supporting lower case and as I said in my close, they were able to counter the arguments of the minority. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed lowercase as well, it may not have been clear from my !vote. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote did not make that clear. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think taking an "oppose as the status quo is good" and interpreting that as not also in opposition of changing the title case was the correct move. Departure– (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The diff speaks for itself. No closer is going to assess that comment as being anything to do with case. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when there are multiple options, someone replies to my post and asks me what I think about the alternative proposal, and I respond (in this case, with an oppose), however, as my comment was the last of the RM, that didn't happen. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a telepath. I cannot predict the future. DrKay (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uppercase intent, politely stated and affirmed, and backing up the clear (to some) wording "this is the primary topic", is an oppose saying that the present uppercased was correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there's a slight consensus that the move is correct and that it's not the primary topic, which is also borne out from a reading of the discussion. I don't like the closer pointing out the fact there's recentism involved from the latest sources because of the centenary year, this would have been better as a vote, but it is absolutely true. After finding consensus for the move there is clear consensus that the new title should be lowercase. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 04:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved). The closer's assertion that "RECENTISM is more likely to favor the 1925 outbreak (because it is the centenary year), thus inflating its prominence" is enough for me to consider this a supervote, given that the only recentism arguments made in the discussion were by people opposed to the move. Even if you buy that argument -- which I do not -- the closer cannot be the only one to raise that point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the job of the closer to assess the strength of arguments. I assessed the recentism argument as weak because it makes no logical sense. Closers should not throw out logic on the grounds that no-one brought it up. DrKay (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » This close is reasonable and within the directions of the guide. I agree that this is a good closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus *specifically* regarding whether or not the tornado outbreak was the primary topic. – The rationale that was provided did not reflect the consensus of the discussion itself.

    On inclusion/exclusion of the year, I find the arguments that this outbreak is the primary topic unconvincing, partly because the google searches below for "tri state tornado" include the 1947 tri-state outbreak in the first 10 hits and RECENTISM is more likely to favor the 1925 outbreak (because it is the centenary year), thus inflating its prominence.

    This is clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE. Nobody in the discussion ever brought up any of these objections regarding the sources during the discussion. If the closer had an objection regarding the sources, they should have voiced them during the discussion. –

    partly because the google searches below for "tri state tornado" include the 1947 tri-state outbreak in the first 10 hits

    Only considering reliable sources, out of these first 10 search results presented, four of them refer to the 1925 tornado outbreak compared to a single piece referring to a "tri-state tornado outbreak" in 2024. The 1947 tornado outbreak source that the closer is referring to comes from Ancestry.com which is an unreliable source. And had the closer looked more into the google search results, they would have found a plethora of sources (including those that predate 2024) that use "Tri-State tornado outbreak" – [3] [4] [5] [6] – in addition to the linked Newspapers.com sources which weren't mentioned in the close. All of this clearly refutes the "recentism" argument offered in the closer's rationale. The results, as stated in my comment, along with this comment, clearly demonstrated the Tri-State tornado outbreak being the primary topic, compared to the weak supports mostly based on no evidence. No comments on the capitalization. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable judgment call by the closer, and one that is consistent with naming and capitalization standards. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (Uninvolved, directly.) This venue is for determining whether the closer erred in assessing the discussion, not for re-litigating arguments for and against various options. "I didn't get the answer I wanted" != "the closer supervoted". A head-count of respondents might have favored "Tri-State", but these proceedings are not a vote, and arguments in favor of "tri-state" had a better WP:P&G and sourcing basis than the pro-capitalization ones. I was uninvolved in this one, but was involved in the related one below. My approach to all of these things is the same: see what the source material, that is actually independent of the subject, is doing. E.g.: [7] - capitalization is fairly common but does not rise to "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" (MOS:CAPS); outside of title-case titles and headings, it's about a 50∶50 rate. So, the closer did not err in the assessment of the arguments' relative strengths. That the pro-capitalization advocates on many of these sorts of RMs tend to be loudly repetitive even after being refuted, more emotive, PoV-pushing of traditionalism, and usually relying on Ipse dixit assertions (e.g. "X just is a proper name", without any evidence that sources consistently treat it as one) doesn't make their arguments better, but palpably weaker. PS: The opening salvo against the closer, "strung together a bunch of unrelated arguments", is particularly silly. The actual job of the closer is to consider all the arguments presented, whether they are related or not. If Editor A has reason X in favor of a rename, and Editor B has reason Y in favor of it, and they are both sensible reasons, not objectively refuted by the opposition, then this provides two valid reasons to perform the move; they absolutely do not cancel each other out.[E.g., if you propose to move David Johansen to Buster Poindexter, both WP:COMMONNAME (hardly anyone knows his one-shot-project alter ego) and WP:ABOUTSELF (he consistently presents himself as David Johansen) are independently solid reason against that move despite being not directly related to each other as rationales (and sometimes those two exact rationales are at cross purposes, as in the case of Cat Stevens who now prefers Yusuf). Every rationale is its own animal in consensus assessment, so it's not just appropriate but necessary for a closer to consider them together.]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved) to uppercased form. The concensus to uppercase seems obvious. Other forms, per the nom, in fact all other forms. Uppercased 'Tri-State' has the most n-gram support. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse <involved>. On the year, it was unwise of the closer to bring in new arguments (particularly the strange reverse-RECENTISM one), but ultimately I do think there was a consensus to move, particularly since my separate WP:NCE argument went unrebutted. I don't see any issues with the capitalization part of the closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) The only point of contention worthy of a move review is the lower-casing, and the closer already said another requested move should be raised on that basis. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn lowercased form. This type of war on capitalization damages articles but significantly this was still an active point of discussion. There was no consensus for the lowercased form, and many arguments were being brought up against it. CutlassCiera 15:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

1925 tri-state tornado

[edit]
1925 tri-state tornado (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

As with the contested move of 1925 tri-state tornado outbreak, closer strung together arguments and WP:SUPERVOTEd (at least from what I see re-reading the discussion). Nobody supported a "tri-state" in the nomination (more people actually voted for Great Tri-State Tornado and Tri-state tornado of 1925 over anything else), and it was moved to an article title that was never actually voted on in the nomination. EF5 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - I opened the RM in the first place, and from my cursory reading it seems a lot more editors were in favor of Tri-State (all capitalized) than even what I initially designated as the move target (Great Tri-State Tornado) with one saying it was more common in secondary sources. Not to mention I strongly dislike this change, and also the fact that Tri-state tornado of 1929, the worst possible name, picked up a concerning amount of steam, but whatever.
Note also the move discussion at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 16 February 2025. Departure– (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think the whole RM needs to be re-done - new votes from everyone who voted, so we can get clearer explanations as to why what should be called what. As stated below, holy hell, this is one mess of an RM, and as someone deep from within WPWX having an RM pick between four possible names and the two that weren't even in the RM being favored at closing through a murky consensus just doesn't sit well with me. Departure– (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Tri-state tornado of 1925. This is a fantastically messy discussion, so I went through and "counted" each !vote by preference: 3 for tri-state of 1925, 2 for 1925 tri-state, and 2 for Great Tornado, plus one split vote for tri-state of 1925/Great Tornado. There's no arguments here that clearly need to be down-weighted, so there's a numerical consensus to move away from the current title. After the original move, there's evidence in the discussion Great Tornado isn't the COMMONNAME, so I would have closed this as "Tri-state tornado of 1925," since the "of" is an accepted naming convention. The only problem with the close is it selected an option no one advocated for, even though it was mentioned once in the discussion. (Tri-state isn't a proper noun, so shouldn't be capitalised.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By my read, including the nom, there were four supporting Great Tri-State (Departure–, EF5, me, Randy Kryn). All these and the two who opposed any name change supported uppercase. That's 6–3, uppercase, and 4–3–2, Great Tri-State. Let me know if I counted wrong, it was a messy discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look at my close: "no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order", i.e. Tri-state tornado of 1925. A few of the editors commenting here don't seem to realise that they're actually agreeing with me. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the entire close was bad. Nobody voted for what you closed it as. EF5 12:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the word order [was] raised but I don't see clear consensus or argument in favor of one or other. Both forms ("1925 tornado" and "tornado of 1925") are natural and idiomatic. I am closing this requested move with the minimal change of upper case to lower case with no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order". DrKay (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » This is what seems to be an obvious case of WP:OTHEROPTIONS and probably shouldn't be reviewed, and yet here we are. Far too many of these are brought here to MRV when a lot of time could be saved by just opening a fresh RM like the closer allowed. Suggest a speedy close of this review so editors can get on with it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was brought here because the action that was taken was to move it away from its old title, only changing the capitalization, a "move" that is quite unpopular here, which wasn't in the original move request. Departure– (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editor Departure–, I know why it was brought here; however, I hope you do see that 1) the closer specifically wrote "...with no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move...", and 2) the opening of a move review for cases like this only lengthens a process that could have been much shorter and productive. Whatever the why, it does not stand up to scrutiny. I sincerely hope you can understand this. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe within the next month, I think I'll open another RM with an extra request for anyone voting to be perfectly crystal clear which name they prefer and why. Departure– (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable judgment call by the closer, and one that is consistent with naming and capitalization standards. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. (Involved.) The closer clearly erred in essentially doing a head-count, and paying little heed to the WP:P&G and sourcing basis of the comments. A conclusion of "no consensus" might have been reasonable, given that multiple alternative suggestions were provided by respondents, over the name initially proposed by the nominator, and arguably none had sufficient support, of the kind we care about, to be selected. However, a closure of "not moved" does not equate to "no consensus" but to "consensus against moving", and there definitely was not one. Whether a slight majority of respondents liked "Tri-State tornado" is irrelevant when their rationales (if offered at all) were faulty from both a WP:P&G and sourcing position, which is the case here, and in at least one other "tri-state"-related discussion (see the MR above this one). To get actual resolution, this should probably be re-closed as "no consensus", and as suggested by Departure–, doing a new RM that doesn't lead with a proposed title no one agrees with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). The OP here suggests that nobody proposed this title. But I did, in a roundabout way, in my comment at the RM: there are areas called "Tri-State", but this is not one of them. Might as well use the conventional proper name of the event if we're not going to use the properly lowecase descritpive title "1925 tri-state tornado". Certainly if closer and found support for "Tri-state tornado of 1925" and for putting the year first, this would be the way to do it, since "Tri-state" makes no sense when not in initial position. But if we overturn, then as SMcCandlish suggests, it should be to "no consensus", so we could try again with a more focused discussion now that we know more about where various editors stand on the various questions. Dicklyon (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved). What a, storm. Uppercased, Tri-State seems an obvious choice for this RM, either that or fully uppercased 'Great Tri-State Tornado' (the choice of the participants) or 2025 Tri-State Tornado. The 2021 Tri-State tornado RM, closed as uppercase, also reflects the will of the involved editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) per Paine Ellsworth, who seems to have hit the nail on the head. Some of the Overturn "!votes" don't actually make sense. SportingFlyer and Randy Kryn (in the final sentence of his comment) appear to partially agree with the closer, and SMcCandlish appears to say the closer did a head-count and found 'a slight majority of respondents liked "Tri-State tornado"', which is not correct. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What? The closer picked a title no one advocated for. How is that any sort of an agreement? SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close. Like I said a week ago,[8] the overturners don't seem to realise that they're agreeing with at least part of the close. The opening party got two moves mixed up[9] and "!voted" to overturn a related move that they proposed and agreed with[10]. Departure– says "I think the whole RM needs to be re-done - new votes from everyone who voted", which is what I said. SportingFlyer says that: there was "consensus to move away from the current title", which was done; that Great Tri-State Tornado was not the consensus outcome, which is what I said; that the title should be lower-cased, which was done; and that the "only problem with the close is it selected an option no one advocated for", which is why I allowed for new discussions. SMcCandlish wants to do a new RM, like I said. Randy Kryn says do a new RM on the basis of my close at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado, which is what I said. Per Paine Ellsworth, this close is within the other options guideline and the overturners should have just opened a new RM like I said, and as was initially done[11]. DrKay (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved). There was clearly no consensus for this close especially. The lowercase capitalization was never endorsed by a majority of editors in the discussion. This was a very premature close and should have ultimately been closed as no consensus. CutlassCiera 14:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - we have a proper RM going now, taking to MRV probably wasn't the best decision. — EF5 18:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to anyone passing - A new RM has been opened at 1925 tri-state tornado and is being held up due to the presence of this MR, which, despite being withdrawn by the nominator, is being argued to be inelligible for a withdrawl. It would be much appreciated for someone well-experienced in moving pages etc to help clean all of this up. Departure– (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    De-withdrawing to see how it closes. — EF5 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tour of Flanders (men's race) (closed)

[edit]
  • Tour of Flanders (men's race) – From my read of the discussion, I see consensus that the RM was closed correctly with respect to the page Tour of Flanders (men's race). However, the discussion was complicated by the fact that the RM nomination also suggested several moves that were not formally included in the RM template, and the RM closure did not address those proposals. For this reason, there was also a meaningful contingent of the discussion that argued that the close erred in its lack of consideration of those topics. Thus, I believe the RM closure has been partially endorsed—the move of the Tour of Flanders (men's race) article is endorsed, but the other elements of the closure were not.
    As for how to handle the other pages discussed in the request: given that they were not formally listed in the RM, it would contravene the RM closing instructions for me to move them unilaterally, so I will instead begin a new RM to request the remaining moves. I feel this approach gets us closest to enacting the will of the RM and MRV discussions with a minimum of additional bureaucracy. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tour of Flanders (men's race) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

Per WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON, the addition of a disambiguator to Tour of Flanders is against policy and unnecessary, especially as "Tour of Flanders" continues to redirect to the new page, showing that the non-disambiguated title is unambiguous, and therefore, the move shouldn't have occurred as was unnecessary. The RM should either be reclosed correctly or otherwise be reopened. Happily888 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there isn't anything wrong procedurally with the closure. This MR seems to have been opened as a way to re-litigate an argument (for which the nominator here seems to have missed the deadline, as the move went unanimously unopposed) as opposed to discussing what was wrong with the closure itself. If the nominator has a good policy-based argument, then it would be easier to consider, or make that argument to the closure and asked that they re-open the discussion so they could make it. Otherwise, if the concern is simply that the undisambiguated title redirects to the new title, then the solution would be to create a DAB page at the new location, or use the {{Redirect}} hatnote template. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, this is a clear endorse, except for one fact - the women's race is at Tour of Flanders for Women, not at Tour of Flanders (women's race), meaning this is unnecessarily disambiguated, and more discussion is necessary to determine whether the women's title should move as well. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The women's race should be moved too. The discussion on the men's race page was about moving both pages as the 'Tour of Flanders' title is ambiguous. The redirect should be to a disambiguation page, not to the men's race page as the above user is suggesting. Yaksgawky (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion applies at all to the women's or the Belgian and Dutch races, because there has been no notification about this move at Talk:Tour of Flanders for Women, Talk:Brabantse Pijl, Talk:Amstel Gold Race, etc. The rationale to move these titles to just avoid sexism is against policy and incorrect, adding disambiguators just for WP:TITLECON should not be occurring. Happily888 (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "just to avoid sexism". It's because the races have the same name. WP:TITLECON is irrelevant in this example as there is clear ambiguity. Tour of Flanders refers to both races, there is no way of knowing which someone means without disambiguating. As the consensus is on the reason for requiring a rename, it therefore applies to Tour of Flanders (women's race) too. Precedent should apply to De Brabantse Pijl and Amstel Gold Race without needing individual discussions. Yaksgawky (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being the original move proposer, I support a new RM debate being opened but strongly oppose an overturn as proposed by others here. I made a mistake by not including other pages in the move request, which I will address when re-debated. However, as User:Cinderella157 references WP:CIR, I too will quote:

It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process."

This is therefore the only logical solution, allowing me to amend this error without undoing all of my previous efforts. Yaksgawky (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed Relist uninvolved Per WP:RMNOMIN: ... move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. I could also cite other applicable P&G whereby the proposal is in conflict with P&G. Retaining the more concise name as a redirect while moving to parenthetic disambiguation is clearly in conflict with applicable guideline and policy. The nom and those (two) supporting the move express opinion without reference to the prevailing P&G. They have not given a very good reason to ignore rules. A closer with adequate knowledge of prevailing P&G and of WP:RMCIDC should not have closed this with a consensus to move. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The original proposer is now saying that the RM should have addressed three pages ie: Tour of Flanders → Tour of Flanders (men's race); Tour of Flanders for Women → Tour of Flanders (women's race) and Tour of Flanders → as a disamgiguation page for the male and female races. This means that the RM is clearly malformed (and no result). The malformed RM has created the inconsistency with P&G per my initial comment. I also note WP:CIR. If closed as malformed I suggest that WP:NATURAL be considered over parenthetic disambiguation in making a new RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NATURAL does not apply to this example as there are no "alternative name[s] that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" , and even if it did, this is not the place to make that claim. See SportingFlyer: Please remember this isn't move review part two, it's just looking to see if the close was appropriate.[12] Yaksgawky (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You write as if the men's race is the primary topic, but it's not. There is no primary in this instance. I also don't know where the argument for having 'Tour of Flanders' as a redirect to the men's race has come from. Tour of Flanders should clearly have been moved to be a disambiguation page but required mod approval to do this. Yaksgawky (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually consistent with Wikipedia policy to endorse the page move. The move to Tour of Flanders (men's race) is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. As per WP:TITLEDAB, "if the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated". 'Tour of Flanders' refers to both the men's and women's races. There is no primary topic here, it is two equal events, so disambiguation is required. The addition of 'men's race' ensures the title remains as concise as possible (as per WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON) while resolving the ambiguity between the two races. The real issue here is that the women's race was not moved at the same time and Tour of Flanders was not set up as a disambiguation page, which creates inconsistency. To fully align with WP:TITLE and WP:TITLECON, the women’s race should also be moved to Tour of Flanders (women's race). Following the guidelines set out in WP:TITLEDAB and WP:DABNAME, Tour of Flanders should be a disambiguation page listing both the men's and women's race pages, rather than having that page set as a redirect to Tour of Flanders (men's race) as is currently the case. Yaksgawky (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember this isn't move review part two, it's just looking to see if the close was appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one above seems to using any policy arguments regarding the closure, the argument is because OP disagrees with the move, not the procedure. Yaksgawky (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist per Cinderella. The issue of primary topic wasn't addressed at all at the RM, and it is therefore incorrect to declare a consensus that there is no longer a primary topic. As such, I've reverted the change of redirect to a dab page. Furthermore, as Cinderella says, given there's a primary topic, disambiguation is unnecessary. If a primary topic discussion were started, it seems fairly clear that the current primary topic (the men's race) is indeed correct, at least as far as page views are concerned - [13].  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, as I have amended my comment, you may wish to review your comment given it refers to mine. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinderella157: indeed, I agree this whole RM is a mess. The discussion didn't include some of the pages that were apparently intended to be affected (including Tour of Flanders for Women) and the participants were talking of a need to disambiguate the topic without ever directly discussing whether the men's event is or isn't a primary topic. As such, I think either a relist or a vacate the close and do-over are required, with a discussion and close which addresses all the issues, not just moving one article to an unnecessarily disambiguated title for no particular reason. I'm not sure what the way forward is... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views is a ludicrous measurement. Of course it's getting "primary topic" views compared to the women's race when it has been receiving priority through having sole Wikipedia ownership of the Tour of Flanders page title. Yaksgawky (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » This is an excellent closure, within the parameters of the guide and perfectly reasonable when you consider there is also a Tour of Flanders (women's race). Both the men's and women's races are of equal status so there is no primary topic. Wikipedia is not misogynistic. A page move was well-supported, unopposed, and then made. As I said, excellent close! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • <uninvolved> There's nothing wrong with the closure, and I don't really agree with some of the concerns that have been expressed above, but obviously people have more to add to this low-participation discussion, so I think a relist makes the most sense. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). This move review is a relitigation of the requested move discussion, where the move was uncontested. I don't see how any closer would have closed that discussion any other way. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.

Big Five game

[edit]
Big Five game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

After discussing with the closer their rational for the close, it would appear that the closer has acted as a judge of the issue, rather of the argument, acting contrary to WP:NHC and consequently WP:RMCIDC. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist or Overturn to no consensus I do not see the strength of argument the closer saw in the discussion - in fact, I think those opposing have an argument more consistent with our core policies. The supports and opposes came to different conclusions about the n-grams (which looking at the n-grams, makes sense). The support arguments also leaned heavily on "it's capitalised elsewhere, so we can do it here was well." I just don't see one side being stronger than the other here. (As an aside, as someone completely unfamiliar with the topic, I thought I was wading into an American sporting event. Adding another word to the title may make sense.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. « uninvolved » Gutsy close, editor Sceptre. I don't see this close as any kind of supervote just because the closer was a little less terse than I would have been. The only thing I would have done differently is that I would have seriously considered going with something similar to editor BarrelProof's proposed title, Big Five game animals, to dispel the obvious confusion and ambiguity. All things considered this RM closure is reasonable and within the outline of the guide. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Largely per Paine above. The close was reasonable and based on information provided in the discussion. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the uppercasing as consistent with both our usual usage and the usual usage of others. It is still, in my opinion, an unclear title, because the reader might think it refers to a football game rather than animals, but that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s a bad article, having negligible coverage of the topic, but separate coverage of each member.
Non admin gutsy closes are not to be commended. The close definitely has features of a Supervote, a frequent feature of this closer, overly personal language, the closer’s own analysis, a failure to cite analysis in the discussion.
But, in the end, this was fiddling of a bad title, focused on the very dubious notion that “Big Five” is a proper name, extremely dubious because the article doesn’t cover the topic as a single topic.
The mess can’t be cleaned from here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as a bad close, and thus a BADNAC.
Consensus was not achieved that “Big Five” is a proper name. Instead, consensus was that it is a question of “style”. Eg:
  • “not a true proper name but styled as such”
  • “The term does function as a proper name, and has majority usage over the downcased version”
Majority usage is not the threshold for adopting an external style over Wikipedias MOS style.
!votes in support were generally bad !votes, and the closer has sided with those bad !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus <uninvolved>. The first two paragraphs of the closure are exactly right, but they should have been followed with "since the discussion is evenly divided and both sides present reasonable arguments about whether the MOS:CAPS threshold is met, there is no consensus". The closer instead imposed her own views on the discussion, and that was a mistake. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" at least, per Extraordinary Writ. (Uninvolved.) When it takes less than 30 seconds to conclusively prove [14] that this phrase is not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" (MOS:CAPS), then the closer demonstrably failed at the assessment of the competing claims of the respondents.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Reasonable close within the guidelines for closers. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved). Looks like a supervote to me. Clearly there was no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close. There isn't a bright line for the "substantial majority" as required for MOS:CAPS, which means these are taken by a case-by-case basis. Re, SMcCandlish's assertion as to the Google Scholar results: it's clear from the link provided that there is one particular paper in those results that appears multiple times. Removing duplicates of the same paper (searching for "big five [animal]" actually does this for us, and also removes any irrelevant items such as, say, football games), we actually do reach a conclusion that there is at least a majority, and depending on how you define it, a pretty large majority, in Google Scholar that follows the capitalisation. But that wasn't the only argument at hand; the other argument is was WP:CONSISTENT. This page was the only page about a "Big" (or indeed "Little") group, where the ordinal number wasn't capitalised. This makes the consistency argument very strong indeed, and there's nothing saying that it doesn't apply in these cases, so we have to assume that it does. Taken in tandem, the strength of the arguments was clearly in favour of moving. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You indicate that SMcC's google scholar search (above) should have been for "big five [animal]" and then we actually do reach a conclusion that there is at least a majority, and depending on how you define it, a pretty large majority [for capitalisation]. Such as search was presented in the RM (search result): The lack of [contexturalised ngram] results indicates a small sample set which is subject to sampling errors. A search of google books (here) shows it is often capped but not consistently capped to the extent we should apply caps here (per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS). A search of Google scholar (here) shows a lesser tendency to cap while a search of Google news (here) shows a greater tendency to cap but taken in balance with the relatively small sample and the other search results, it is not enough to justify capitalisation. At your TP discussion you state: When an ngrams search comes up with a supermajority, and when other comparators such as Google News, Google Scholar, Archive.org also come up with large majorities, that has to be taken into account as to which arguments hold more weight or not. You appear to ignore there is a substantive reason to not rely on ngram evidence that was given in the RM. You state above: This makes the consistency argument very strong indeed, and there's nothing saying that it doesn't apply in these cases. An argument was made in the RM: Quite specifically, CONSISTENT does not apply to spelling variations and capitalisation is arguably a spelling variation. This is without considering MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, which you failed to mention in the close. You would appear to ignore that which does not suit a consensus for Big Five. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In interpreting my GScholar search (or any like it), you of course have to look at the sources and their text, and ignore any that are false-positive hits for unrelated subjects. This is already implicit to everyone, when it comes to this sort of aggregate-usage examination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to move. The closer put in a certain amount of effort in arguing that the "proposed format is permissible"... But that is only a precondition to forming a consensus, not in itself a consensus. If the inference that the starting, lower-caps, name is "impermissible" and that therefore those opposing the proposal are, well, just wrong, the course of the discussion does not bear that out. Maybe, or probably, or, more likely, certainly, both are permissible, and to change from one to the other the burden to move must be met, and it wasn't met. —Alalch E. 18:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an opposer to this move request, I wholeheartedly endorse. Just because I didn't like the result doesn't mean I have to pretend it was wrong. It was a well-explained and justified close. Red Slash 05:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute shocked disbelief that capitalisation still causes so many problems for the project, partnered with Endorse (uninvolved). Whilst I would have closed this one as no consensus, closing it in the way that is was was basically within the closer's Margin of appreciation to do. I don't see any great error in the close, which was well explained. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denali (closed)

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Denali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer specified)

The closer's claim of "no consensus" after the bare minimum 7 days rests on a false premise. They claimed that "quite a lot" of input was not based on policy or guideline, which is just plain wrong. Many, many arguments cite project guides and rules. Surprisingly many actually, in an RM that is tangentially connected to the current president, where heated opinions often bubble. The closer then used this discarding of votes to whittle down the vast leaning towards oppose (2/3rds to 1/3rd) and declare a "No Consensus." All this does is punt the discussion to the future, which is literally ("Once things have settled down, another RM should be made...") what the closer wants. Overall, bad close, please relist or close as "Not Moved." Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Endorse of the close of No Consensus - My machine count of the !votes is 76 Support, 105 Oppose, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer of consensus. After 181 !votes, a Relist would be stupid. The appellant states correctly that what the close does is to punt the discussion to the future, which is exactly what should be done, to allow time for public opinion and the opinions of editors to stabilize. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Machine counts never work on these type of discussions because people use the keywords in their rationales. I used the manual counting method twice, and got 50-86 (37%-63%), which is definitely in Oppose territory. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Open Even if the end result would be the same, this was a very active discussion that was closed a week after it opened. That was way too soon. Usually when we see closures after a week it's because there were five or six editors discussing the RM and it had slowed to a crawl. I expected two-three weeks or when we saw participation slow to a crawl. Procedurally, it can be closed in seven days, but we are also supposed to look at the polling situation and use some good judgement. I'm not convinced that was done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open per the above. The RfC was still gaining comments, and as mentioned elsewhere I am unconvinced that No Consensus was the right call anyway, given the heavy preponderance of Oppose !votes and the weakness of a number of Support rationales. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. < uninvolved > This a rare instance when there is a long discussion, a preponderance of opposition, and the abundant unliklihood that a consensus to move would be achieved any time soon. Editors are asked to go with the flow on this one and allow some time, at least three months, study this RM with an eye toward improving supportive arguments, and then open a fresh move request. Good, strong rebuttals to the present opposition rationales are badly needed if editors want to be successful. On the other hand, if editors want to fruitlessly debate this issue for several weeks, then by all means relist it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I clearly said on my talk page that I was willing to reconsider the closure. Rather than respond further and try to convince me, you've gone straight to the nuclear option?
That said, I lean to endorsing my own closure. This was already a long discussion, and relisting for an entire second week would lean to one of those unpleasant situations where a long and controversial discussion is longer than it needs to be. More importantly, the key here is that we need to wait and evaluate the sources. If the sources are changing while we're discussing, we have !votes on day 3 based on some sources and !votes on day 12 based on others that the day-3ers didn't even know about... this is manageable when it's a small discussion, but on this scale it just becomes a giant mess that can be avoided by closing the discussion on schedule.
I also respectfully don't buy the argument that it should have been relisted because discussion was ongoing. The point of a relist is to clarify consensus, and often to get more participation. As noted on my talk page: WP:RMCI tells us: Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed, usually due to lack of consensus. Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. There is no consensus here, true (that's why I closed it that way), but relisting for seven days is unlikely to help things, as Paine Ellsworth says. There's more than enough participation already.
Regarding questioning of my "no consensus" close itself: as I said in my closing statement, there's simply no consensus about the applicability of WP:NAMECHANGES. We cannot agree on a WP:COMMONNAME, probably because the rename happened only a week ago. If anything here was premature, it was the launching of this RM – basically the same day as the change happened. The RM should not have been started so early because it was difficult to properly evaluate the sources. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a reasonable conclusion. I wish that had happened in 2015. But we have big discussions going on about the word Century that has been open since January 3. It's now late in closing but that's what we usually see. This seemed like a rush. Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close. I actually think it was started so soon because the same was done in 2015 when the official change simply won out in consensus. So this RM was started when someone assumed the same thing would happen. Obviously not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say, Had you closed this with "Because details are still coming in and the !votes reflect that changing dynamic, lets wait 30-60 days and try again" perhaps many would have calmed down or not been upset with the close.
For the record, by my understanding that's pretty much what the close did say. Sources seem to be in a bit of disarray as to what to call the mountain, and this discussion reflects that: things are still changeing, and there no consensus as to whether or not a new WP:COMMONNAME has been established to meet WP:NAMECHANGES. Once things have settled down, another RM should be made, and sources should be evaluated.
The main difference I see is that the close provided reached a conclusion on the content of the discussion (which is what a close should be doing), and did not imply that a move was the preferred outcome (as let's try again potentially would have done). Kahastok talk 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mine also had an exact date range. Often editors complain that a new rm/rfc is opened way too soon after a closing, and they shut it down. With an exact timeframe editors could re-evaluate based on that. But I do expect the same result by consensus in the future regardless of where the common name is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. The whole page is a mess. There are Wikipedians making reasonable arguemnts from both perspectives, and also a lot of poorly-informed drive-by comments from barely-used ot long-inactive accounts. I stopped closely following any of the discussions days ago because they are all congested with unhelpful commentary and bickering. This is a CTOP page now and a timely close is exactly what it needed. I do think it was leaning more to the oppose side, but this is one of those cases where somebody would have brought this here regardless of the close. As much as this does upset me as an Alaskan it is hardly the main issue in the sweeping sea of executive actions we've seen in the last few weeks, and once the outrage machine moves on to something else and sources have had time to do real reporting on the mountain and not just reaction pieces, we may find it easier to find a clear consensus arrived at through policy-based arguments. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this closure but allow a new RM to be opened – I have to agree that this move request was tainted due to the “I like it” and “I don’t like it” arguments. Now I will say that it was open for at least a week; but I think the appropriate thing should have been to relist because it still seemed split. So, based on the fact that it was closed too fast, and many of the !votes were based on things other than policy; I think that we should just restart the whole RM, clean slate; that way we don’t have !votes that are tainted by “I (don’t) like it” arguments. Involvement note: I did vote “weak support” in the RM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure how a new RM at this stage would be anything different from the current one. You'd have the same suite of users making the same arguments (based in policy or otherwise) using the same evidence base, and would likely reach the exact same outcome. A new RM down the line would give time for the dust to settle. Turnagra (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think let’s endorse THIS closure; and then open a new RM in about a month or two. That’s what I’m referring to. Because there have been complaints about people basing there !votes on whether or not they like the name; and not based on policy. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Turnagra that way they can see this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I still stand by my original comment, though. I appreciate the distinction between reopening this RM and opening a new one, but my point is that the circumstances that lead to this RM being a dumpster fire of poor arguments are still exactly the same, and a new RM would likely go the exact same way. We'd be better to taihoa for a few months and then if there's evidence that usage has shifted a RM can be opened at that point, once the dust has settled. Turnagra (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree on that point. I very much think that the dust should have time to “settle” @Turnagra. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse closure as is; do not reopen: Incredibly clear that there was not going to be a consensus in favour to move, no matter how long you kept the RM open. Whether it's closed as "no consensus" or "not moved" is academic, really. Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as is as there is no rush, this is not a WP:BLP issue, and no non-renaming stories involving the mountain have occured in the last week or two. Per WP:THREEOUTCOMES "Successful move re-requests generally, though not always, take place at least three months after the previous one" and I would strongly urge that no move requests be allowed under three months after the close of this one. Calwatch (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see no reason to think consensus would have been reached by keeping it open longer. anikom15 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure for now. This entire RM has been a mess so much so that I had to fully protect the page at one point. Finding consensus is going to be really hard and no matter what move is made people will be upset. Here is my thought process on this. Article titles generally follow the name that reliable English-language sources most commonly use in practice (WP:COMMONNAME). We do not necessarily use an “official” name if the official name is not actually the term in widespread use. If a subject changes its name, we look at what current, independent, reliable sources are doing after that change. (WP:NAMECHANGES) If the majority of these sources “routinely” adopt the new name, we should also adopt the new name as well. We need to avoid jumping in too fast in cases like this if usage is still uncertain or if the new name is only used by a small number of sources. Even if The Department of the Interior announced the official name, it might take months or more to see how reliable sources actually use it. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to avoid guesswork (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and since we are nowhere near consensus now we might as well wait and see what happens after the dust settles. Even during the period this RM was open there were changes in reporting of the name. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and DO NOT reopen there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it, and also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRYSTALBALL made the most sense. If we reopen the rm then it'll just be another big mess for more people to argue. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    there are almost twice as many people opposing it rather than supporting it not a good reason, see WP:NOTVOTE. Cremastra (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to not moved (uninvolved, though I did mention the article name in another discussion recently) There are two core arguments here which might be policy-based: those supporting say the OFFICIALNAME is now the COMMONNAME, and those opposing say it's still the COMMONNAME. Opposers have the stronger argument if you look at our precedent for other similar situations, for instance when countries change their name - it's a wait and see process, we generally do not make the change immediately unless there is an urgent reason to do so. 40-60% consensus with such a high number of people involved is well out of no consensus territory. It was also open for a week and was well-discussed, so I see no point in re-opening either. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to not moved (involved) per SportingFlyer. Technically per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, not moved and no consensus are different closes, even if for practical purposes they are the same. Regardless, the discussion should not be reopened or restarted given that an extremely high level of participation occurred. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to moved (involved): Open for one week the discussion had more supporting points than opposition ones; many arguments on the basis of native usage were very WP:OR cases to make. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR is completely irrelevant for move discussions. It even says so on the page: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were arguments on both sides that were poor; this is why it's useless to count votes (and why I closed it the way I did). Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is patently untrue, and largely the reason we are here. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry? Are you asserting that all the arguments made were perfect, well-thought out, and based in policy and guidelines? That's absurd. Here's just a few, on both sides:
    • Support It's the official name now.
    • Oppose This is just another ploy by the Trump administration to create more division and hate in this country. Keeping the article as is is a form of rebellion and standing our ground. Just because Trump is running the show now doesn't mean we have to tolerate his new policies. This IS still a democracy after all. Keep it as Denali.
      • Um.
    • Support If AP style has already shifted to reflect the change, it must be moved. Any opposition to this is silly and obviously rooted in bias against Trump. Accept this and move on.
      • Bad-faith aspersions aside, last time I checked, the AP style guide was not a commandment from heaven.
    • Strongly Oppose , Common people of Alaska including Democrats and most Republicans continue to call it Denali and used the word Denali even before Obama renamed it according to the source.
      • No evidence, WP:COMMONNAME is sort of implied vaguely but not even backed up with a "per [username]".
    • Support. This page was moved to Denali almost instantaneously once Obama declared that to be the name. I see no reason not to follow that precedent now.
    • Oppose The content of Wikipedia shouldn't reflect political stunts. If content can change at the whim of a politician then that seriously undermines readers' ability to trust Wikipedia.
    • Support Regardless of our feelings about the name change or the man behind it, it's our solemn (sometimes tedious) duty to report the facts of reality, and this is the official name. Ignoring that would lead to a problem where everyone could rename stuff on Wikipedia.
    • Support
    Also a lot of the votes and replies were just screaming "IT'S THE COMMON NAME!!!" "NO IT ISN'T!!!!" with rather a dearth of evidence cited for such a major discussion. I stand by my close. Cremastra (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherry-picking like this is just further cementing the fact that you were unfit to close this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - this is a perfectly valid response to your assertion, and I don't see this reply as providing any indication as to Cremastra's ability to close the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaathras You must be kidding me. You ask me to provide evidence of any bad !votes whatsoever; I provide some; and then you accuse me of cherrypicking quotes!? If I had included some of the good !votes, it wouldn't be a response to your (clearly unsubstantiated) claim, would it? If compiling evidence is "cherrypicking", then yes, I suppose this is. But your insistence on aggressively attacking my decisions for no apparent reason troubles me. In fact, I wonder if this whole MRV is frivolous, especially given that you rushed to this option even though I made it clear that I was willing to discuss this further on my talk page. I am, not to put too fine a point on it, ticked off at pretty much everything I've seen of your conduct so far.Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your feelings are wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the point remains that you rushed to close an active discussion as no-consensus by fraudulently claiming that a preponderance of the input was not policy-based. We're done here, and we shall await the close of this filing. Which should either be re-opened or closed now as a consensus to Not Move. Zaathras (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse other editors of making fraudulent claims. Your aggressive behaviour is way out of line. I do not wish to deal with you further. Cremastra (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Thanks to Cremastra for tackling such a contentious move and doing a decent job of it. What a lot of words to sift through on all of this! I agree with Calwatch. Let's just wait three months and see what happens. Encyclopedias move slower than news outlets. That's ok. Maybe even good. Surely enough of all this for now. Ironic (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the close of this review. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_February&oldid=1287329627"