The closure seemed to be a vote count and no other rationale for the move was given by the closer. — AjaxSmack 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (uninvolved) Even if one treats this as a vote, 5 supports to 4 opposes is definitely not "clear that this is what people want". The closer provided no evidence that they examined the arguments presented by both sides at all. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer wrote "if you want me to revert it, I can", so can you confirm if that's what you want? Or you're honestly not sure? Anyway, since I'm already here: Overturn and relist (uninvolved). I see no consensus yet. The earlier Helianthus annuus requested move 1 March 2022 should not be read as having settled whether the term "sunflower" corresponds more closely to Helianthus or to Helianthus annuus. (Indeed, the choice between "sunflower" and "common sunflower" at the earlier RM had unclear consensus, and I look at the result as a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS result.) In this RM, editors are free to continue debating that question, and those arguments should not be discounted. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Uninvolved). Clearly there was no clear consensus to move in the discussion and neither side advocated clear policy/guideline reasons for their position. I would have thought that WP:FLORA would be front and center in the discussion, but it was not.Mike Cline (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist as closer. If @AjaxSmack: would've explicitly asked me to do so, I gladly would've. RedSlash 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation – Procedural close. Invoking WP:SNOWBALL here. Consensus here found that the main question underlying this move review is whether Commonwealth citizens can be considered Poles or Lithuanians. Debates like these are outside the scope of move reviews, which mainly deal with whether move discussions were closed appropriately. (uninvolved non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A month ago, a decision was made to move Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation and its subcategories to Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupation. The decision was based on the observation that Poland ceased to exist in 1569 when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. This is a false statement, as the Commonwealth was a unionist state between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. So both states existed until the end of the 18th century. Besides, it is based on a narrow understanding of the concept of "nationality" as being inextricably linked with an existing state. In this understanding, in the 19th there was no people of Polish nationality, because Poland did not exist as a sovereign state. Moreover, the user Rathfelder who initiated the process referred to the article Polish-Lithuanian identity, not understanding its content, as this identity refers to the Lithuanians, citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who adopted the Polish language and culture, and not to all inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I would ask the administrators to react and withdraw the changes made. I also ping @Piotrus: as he asked. Marcelus (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is my fault that I missed the initial move discussion, sigh. The new category is likely valid BUT it should not replace the old one. There were both distinct Poles and Lithuanians throughout the history (although it is common to describe many as Poles, due to the strenght of the Polish culture and ongoing voluntary Polonization in that timeframe). While we do have an article on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it is customary to refer to the country as just Poland too (just like USSR was still called Russia, or England is used to refer to the entire UK, etc.). Inexplicably, we still have the Category:17th-century Polish people by occupation. And of course there still is the Category:18th-century Polish people, but it now co-exists with the Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people...and Category:18th-century Lithuanian people. Sigh. As I said, I think it's ok to have all three categories (for Poles and Lithuanians, and the parent Polish-Lithuanian), the problem is that the move has incorrectly moved many Polish people FROM the Polish category into the P-L one, when it should have just copied them. Hence the move needs to be partially reverted (old categories need to be restored, with no prejdudice to retaining the newer one as well - although overcategorization is an issue - we don't need someone to be both in the Polish and Polish-Lithuanian categories, IMHO, the Polish ones, a child to P-L one, should suffice). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt a problem. Its quite difficult to deal with shifting nationalities. What was agreed, I understand, is essentially that we cant call either Polish or Lithuanian a nationality during that period. The idea of nationality is complex, and mixed up with territory, culture and, I think especially in this region, language. We have been through a similar process in respect of Belgium, which is not so complicated, and it has taken months. This process is by no means finished, and I hope people who know more than I do about the history and geography of the period in Eastern Europe will get involved. As you note, this was only about the 18th century. We need to go back a few centuries yet. I have actually just bought a book on the history of Poland to improve my understanding of all this.Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder re: "we cant call either Polish or Lithuanian a nationality during that period". I think that's a pretty fringe POV. Poles and Lithuanians were living in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is known in modern English simply as Poland (FYI, in Polish, it was also called Rzeczpospolita). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder Maybe you should read more than one book on this topic before making such profound changes? I'm serious you don't really seem to understand the topic. There were plenty of people at that time who considered themselves "Polish" or "Lithuanian", or both at the same time. There were also Ruthenian people. As I said earlier the term "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to another group of people. Marcelus (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what people considered themselves. The question is what their nationality was. Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is defined by the existence of states. That is what the Ukrainian war, and many other wars, is about. Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder So Ukrainian nationality showed up out of the thin air in 1991? You can think what you want, but don't impose your own views on others. Marcelus (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not imposing my views on anyone. Changes to categorisation are subject to public debate. If you have views about them then please contribute. And yes Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria will need careful thought as they did exist in some form when they were not independent. You are entirely free to establish 18th century Polish occupational categories if you think they are warranted, but they would be under the superior category of Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian people by occupationRathfelder (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder You are imposing your narrow view about what defines nationality on others. Can you link me to a discussion when it was decided that Polish nationality didn't exist in the 18-th century? Also once again you are showing an ignorance, because it kingdom of Hungary existed all the time in one form or another since the establishement. So you are lacking of the required knowledge to impose even your own narrow view Marcelus (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder I asked about the discussion in which it was decided how to define nationality in categories. How is that agreement of 3-4 people conclusive or binding for anyone? WikiProjects weren't informed, it wasn't based on anything but the whim of people engaged in it. Marcelus (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been lots of discussions over the years. Although only 4 people participated in that decision many more, I hope, noticed it. That is how categorisation is always discussed. Being rude to me is not going to advance your cause. We need to find a constructive way forward. Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I am quite aware that I dont know as much about Poland or Lithuania as I would like, so suggestions for reading - in English- would be most welcome. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder I am not being rude, I am simply making a clear assessment of your actions. They are contradictory, because even if we restrict the understanding of nationhood to the state, the Polish state did not cease to exist in the 18th century, for it existed if only in the form of the kingdom of Poland. But this is entirely secondary, because a narrow understanding of nationality is wrong, and in Wikipedia terms even harmful. In this understanding Poles in the 19th century did not exist at all. The only solution I can see is to restore the categories Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation. If you don't have enough knowledge about Poland or Lithuania, then don't comment on these topics and don't make disruptive changes in articles or their categorization before you have enough knowledge. Marcelus (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder To put it more simply, you have to accept that the categories relating to nationality in relation to certain national groups (such as those whose states at some point disappeared or changed form), cover what we understand in the broader definition of nationality (so nationality + ethnicity). It is simply easier with countries such as France that have existed for a long time in an essentially unchanging form. Or with countries that emerged in the modern era, like the USA or Belgium. For such countries ethnicity and nationality overlap almost 100%. Poland and many other countries in the region have their own characteristics. Otherwise we will have a multiplicity of categories, and they will lose their usefulness.For example, someone who wants to look up biographies of all Polish painters will not be able to do so, because they will not find them all in the category Category:Polish painters, some will only be in the categories Category:Russian painters, Category:Prussian painters (this category don't even exist, although according to you it should be, because there was no German painters before 1871), etc. Here really every case is different. Alfred Izydor Romer is currently categorized as a Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian painter. In my opinion, rightly so. According to your definition wrongly, he was only a Russian painter. Which would be insulting to him, as he fought in the uprising against the Russians. Marcelus (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The categories for Belgium, France, and Spain before unification have been separated out, but as you say, each case is different, but the whole point of categorisation by nationality is that it is reasonably objective. Ethnic/cultural categories are generally deprecated. And not all Polish painters may be directly in Category:Polish painters because some will be in categories linked to cities. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who decided that they are deprecated? Was there any discussion about it? What is your opinion on Category:Greek_philosophers and its subcategories? Marcelus (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every time an ethic category is discussed there is general agreement that they are undesirable in most case. But context is everything. I dont think most people would regard Category:Greek_philosophers as an ethnic category. The further back in time we go the harder it is to use nationality. And personally I think for many occupations nationality is less important than location and culture. But I think we need to be clear that nationality is not the same as ethnicity, culture, language or location. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why the Greek case is different than Polish? Why Polish categories cannot be regarded as "ethnic categories"? What's exactly the difference? If Category:Greek_philosophers is an ethnic category why is it a subcategory of Category:Philosophers_by_nationality? Why Category:18th-century Greek philosophers is allowed to exist, and Category:18th-century Polish philosophers isn't? According to your logic, it should be otherwise, because the Polish state very much existed in the 18th century, while the whole Greek was occupied by Ottoman Empire. The Kingdom of Greece existed only since 1832, so there shouldn't be any Greek people before that date. Marcelus (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marcelus - I have to think about.. it seems to be a related issue to this --> [1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella I think it's only semi-related, Polish-Lithuanian categories can exist alongside Polish and Lithuanian categories, they aren't mutually exclusive Marcelus (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they could exist alongside. True. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when I think about more, I believe it was a wrong move per Marcelus’s reasonings - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. If new issues are discovered, either talk first to the closer, User:Bibliomaniac15, or start a new CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What new issues you have in mind? The move was improper from the factual point of view Marcelus (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New issues are for the complainant to articulate. “The move was improper”? Where in the CfD is the evidence for that? Coming here means that you allege fault with the closer or the process. You’ve come here prematurely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closer recommendation: Thanks for the ping, SmokeyJoe. I should have been notified of this as a step prior to filing a move review. If that had been done, I would have recommended opening up a new CFD that extends to the entire category tree instead of filing a move review. Given his argument, it was procedurally improper for Rathfelder to only nominate Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation without also nominating the categories for 16th and 17th century. It was my mistake that I did not examine this prior to closing. With the category tree now splintered, I recommend that this MR request be withdrawn, and a CFD be opened instead that would include all categories that might be affected by the discussion about Polish vs. Polish-Lithuanian. bibliomaniac15 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> per SmokeyJoe and Bibliomaniac15. This review should be withdrawn by the nom, who should then take action recommended by the CfD closer. If that does not happen, then the suggestion would be to procedurally close this review so the correct pathway can be quickly followed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 15:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoePaine Ellsworth and Bibliomaniac15 can explain to me exactly what the issues are and what to do step by step, without using wikipedia lingo? I don't really understand what you are saying Marcelus (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: The main issue is not that your concerns are invalid; it's that move review is primarily for evaluating whether the discussion's consensus was properly assessed. But since you're bringing a new argument about the way things should be categorized, it would be better for you to first withdraw this nomination and then start a new CFD instead. You can consult WP:CFD#HOWTO for a step-by-step process on how to nominate a category for renaming. If you need help with that, let me know. bibliomaniac15 19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Japan bashing – Procedural close. This is not a move request. Article restored with directions to take it to AfD if deletion is wanted. Restoration reverted and, it seems, rightly so. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
So the thing is that there was a page called "Japan bashing" which existed for more than a decade at this point and pretty well sourced. There are at least 5 more different languages verson of this topic. However, a user called Chipmunkdavis redirect the whole page to the page of Anti-Japanese sentiment instead recently. While "Japan bashing" is indeed an anti-japanese sentiment in the US but many agreed this topic is important enough to have its own page. Moverover, when the page got redirected, there were little new content added in the page of "Anti-Japanese sentiment". Also, I didnt found any discussion about redirecting the post, at least not the talk page of "Japan bashing". User Chipmunkdavis also reverted those changes who disagreed with his action without any explaination. You can see that in the history page of the topic. (Page history︰https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_bashing&action=history)
Also, I cant notify user Chipmunkdavis about this review because his talk page does not allow me to leave comments. Someone97816 (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Discord – relist. There's not really a consensus in this discussion, among uninvolved editors, as to whether the close is proper. Those feeling it is say opposers had stronger arguments (w.r.t long-term significance?), and those saying overturn say it's not the place of closers to play around with the weight of comments if both sides have legitimate policy-based arguments. Move-review instructions give the closer discretion to relist the discussion in cases where the move review results in no consensus. Since the discussion was promptly closed after 7 days, I'm going to opt for that option, with the hope that discussion participants will clarify which PTOPIC argument is more valid. I suggest someone else have a shot at closing it after the relisting period elapses. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In this discussion of Discord (software) → Discord, I see a consensus to move. I count 19 editors supporting and 9 editors opposing. That is a clear majority, and not a close one.
The arguments were not just page views and clickstream versus long-term significance. Supporters also made several other relevant points, such as: that neither the goddess Eris nor the music theory technical concept of dissonance is mainly referred to or would be searched by "discord"; WP:NOTDICTIONARY; and the dissimilarities with apple (which has an encyclopedia article) and the similarity with Hearthstone. Overall, I think the support side made a stronger case on the merits. (Indeed, several participants switched their position from oppose to support during the RM, which is a sign that a case was convincing.)
Even if you disagree and you think that the arguments from both sides were roughly equal on the merits, then if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it (Wikipedia:Closing discussions). If some people gave more weight to some policies and one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other people gave more weight to another, then the 19 editors have the rough consensus over the 9.
In my view, the no consensus closure should be overturned. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Discussions are not votes and the close was reasonable enough. What the above quote from WP:Closing discussions fails to account for is that the discord in this RM was based on differing interpretations of the same policy (namely WP:PTOPIC) not two different ones. I'd also note there was a fair amount of bludgeoning from those supporting the move, which tends to dissuade those with opposing view points from participating. Calidum 14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved) I agree with Adumbrativus's analysis. With a 20:9 ratio supporting (including nominator), if you're going to close the discussion as anything but "consensus to move", it should be because the opposing arguments had a significantly stronger basis in policy, but the closer has not indicate any finding of that sort. I think almost all participants grounded their arguments sensibly in policy. (The last two !votes - an oppose and a support - might be discounted as WP:JUSTAVOTE. There are a couple others that I find to be kind of out of line with policy, but I'm not going to get into the weeds, especially since I was involved.)The closer mentioned in their talk discussion that the "strong oppose"s and "weak support"s (of which there were 2 each) pushed the call over the line. I do think it's appropriate to give less weight to a "weak" !vote (or one which otherwise indicates some ambivalence), but I think it's a bad idea to consider a "strong" one as more significant. Call me cynical, but I think if this became the precedent, there are some editors who would submit nothing but "strong" votes for their preferred option. (I think the brief essay at WP:STRONG has a good take on this.) Colin M (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as uninvolved. The opposers rallied around PTOPIC and comparisons to Apple. The support !voters rallied around PTOPIC and correctly and repeatedly proved how the two cases are not equal; apple the fruit is an incredibly important topic in its own right, and discord the concept does not have an article about it. There is no comparison. This is not Wiktionary. The arguments against the move were repeatedly and logically refuted at every step. The close is indefensible. RedSlash 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Involved) I noticed that Calidum mentioned that there was some bludgeoning from those who supported. While I did do a little bit of bludgeoning myself, it was mainly to try and see a bit more of the reason behind some of the opposes, however I tried to avoid any heavy bludgeoning myself since I see that as rather dirty since it's basically trying to pressure someone to change their !vote by persistently countering what they are saying. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted Calidum is not an enthusiastic thread-discussionist in !vote sections, but on the other hand, you did make a number of replies to others that were "points" and not questions or invitations to discuss. I suggest that where you have a counter-point to someone else's !vote, you should make that point under your own !vote, and reserve replying to where you are asking a them a question or conducting genuine dialogue. This is a complicated and subtle thing, and I know of no written rules or guidance for it, but it is my idea that I think you might consider. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Move) <uninvolved>. While I am not sure I agree that supports have completely cancelled the long term significance concerns brought by the opposes, it is possible to have a primary topic without it. The page views data is extremely compelling and makes a strong argument that app is primary topic by usage. From WP:PTOPIC: In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. When global consensus as represented through policies are indeterminant, local consensus can be considered. PaleAqua (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus) <uninvolved> The closing statement was correct. User:Sceptre usually is correct, but I urge consideration as to whether his proclivity to close contentious discussions is less helpful to the project than if he were to !vote in these discussions. This is the WP:Supervote principle. However, I have not looked to find out what proportion of Spectre's closes are contentious and brought to MRV.
On the underlying issues: The primary meaning of "discord" matters. Both wikt:discord and Consonance and dissonance are a problem for the software sitting at the basename. Much of Wikipedia's audience will not be familiar with the software, and sending theme there would be astonishing. Separately, those looking for information on the software probably are the majority. The underlying fault is WP:MALPLACED. It needs repudiation. The basename Discord should be a redirect to Discord (disambiguation). No user should be sent to a disambiguation page expecting unwantingly. Not titling all disambiguation pages with the suffix "(disambiguation)" is a PRECISE and CONSISTENCY failure and a disservice to readers, including me. WP:MALPLACED is the underlying single cause of these endless intractable problems when neologisms usurp old words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (Move) <involved>. When both sides of RM discussion make legitimate arguments, but one side is favored by an almost 2 to 1 majority in favor of the move, the discussion should be closed as consensus to move. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> Whew! Gotta hand it to Sceptre, because that is one of the closest calls I've seen. The closure is reasonable because the opposers generally had the stronger arguments. So "no consensus", while not extremely obvious, is valid in this case. Tough but Good call!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 12:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move as proposed. The opposers seem to be arguing more against the encyclopedicness of the software (An argument better made in AFD than RM) rather than its long term significance or the arguments made by the supporters. Those opposes should have been weighed accordingly and the close therefore should have been to move. Iffy★Chat -- 14:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) Entirely correct close. Long-term significance is extremely important and was the principal argument of the opposers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (uninvolved) It is not established whether long-term significance or usage has the most weight in move discussions. Given this, it is not permitted by policy to give greater weight to !votes based on the former than based on the latter, and given !votes of equal weight there is a clear consensus for the move. Note: I would have opposed the move, on grounds of long term significance, if I had remembered to reply. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (involved) The vote majority was't so overwhelming as to require a move, so I could see a "no consensus" close, but I'd expect there to be some major policy concerns afoot. Per the MR nomination, I'm not convinced this was identified - even if we grant that "long term significance" is a major concern, it simply isn't true that Eris is looked up by typing in "Discord" directly ("Goddess of Discord", maybe). The music theory subject has the same issue. I'd say that the discussion clearly came to the consensus that the move was good. (In the RM, I voted to move.) SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the face of it, this looks like a good outcome. There was a primary topic based on usage, but not on long-term significance; against the backdrop of this discrepancy, both the general preference for disambiguation as the default, and the status quo happily converge on a "no consensus". But if you look more closely into the arguments, the case for the "long-term significance" side gets a lot shakier. Maybe only the meaning in music could legitimately enter into the equation, though it was only highlighted by a few participants. Most gave prominence either to something that doesn't exist (an article about the everyday meaning of the word), or to an obscure figure in Romany mythology that's only rarely known as "Discord" (its claimed etymological primacy, had it been true, would have been irrelevant). – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. (uninvolved). It is alright to give weight to long-term significance concerns, but in this case they have been given too much weight by the closer. The opponents failed to build the case as to which other item(s) from the dab page can plausibly compete with the software in terms of encyclopedic relevance and plausibility of search (the deity and musical dissonance are seldom referred to as "discord"), and their arguments come across as rather vague in my reading. No such user (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think this was the correct close based on the reading of the discussion. While more users voted to support, the views of those opposing were a bit stronger and noted short term significance cannot determine a primary topic. While this could have been closed as a move, the close is acceptable and possibly even commendable. SportingFlyerT·C 19:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I feel that the close of this RM amounted to a simple vote count without weighing the policy support for each side. I engaged the closer for a more detailed explanation for which policy won the day but he declined to elaborate. One of the primary editors in opposition to the move, User:Poindextero, has since been identified as a perennial abuser of sockpuppets. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Involved): As the closer, I did not believe there was clear consensus to move this title and arguments for moving were insufficient to counter those opposing the move. Thus-Not Moved.Mike Cline (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse <uninvolved> Close reflects the discussion, arguments opposing the move appear to be stronger. Both support and opposing arguments cite WP:NCTHE. Oppose arguments focus on the first condition under the convention section, and the supports focus on the second condition. Given a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met, the oppose arguments are stronger and not countered by the supports. PaleAqua (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse (uninvolved) it probably should have been "no consensus" arguments in favour or moving may be marginally stronger as sources were presented but opposers did raise reasonable arguments as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as uninvolved. I think the decision was the wrong one as per our policies, but it accurately reflected the debate and discussion, so it's correct. RedSlash 17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
An editor has disputed my closure on my user talk page. I have clarified the reasoning behind my closure in my talk page discussion, and I stand by it. Is my closure appropriate? feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 18:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copying my reasoning as closer from my user talk page. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those supporting the move pointed out that the maritime dock has existed (i.e. began existing in the past and continues to exist) for thousands of years - an assertion that is unlikely to be challenged - hence concluding that the topic is primary with respect to long-term significance (substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). Under WP:PTOPIC, there is no requirement that a topic be primary with respect to both usage and long-term significance. According to Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it - and the view that the maritime topic is the primary topic for "dock" has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it.
Based on my understanding of WP:PTOPIC, there is a difference between "historical age" and "long-term significance". The former refers merely to how old a topic is without regard for its significance, e.g. Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) has historical age but is not the primary topic for "Anne Hathaway". The latter applies to topics which have existed for a long time and have remained significant over its period of existence, e.g. Apple is the PTOPIC over Apple Inc. both because of its age and because it has remained significant throughout its existence. It is acceptable to justify that the maritime topic is the PTOPIC for "dock" on the basis that it has remained significant on a long-term basis; in contrast, if the reasoning were "it existed thousands of years ago", then that would be a weak argument based merely on historical age.
With regards to usage, no one supporting the move justified it on the basis of no single topic having more significance; instead, they either regarded the maritime topic as the PTOPIC on the basis that a reader is more likely to seek the maritime topic than all other topics combined, or regarded this as a situation where usage alone does not indicate a PTOPIC. As far as I can see, there is no single way to determine whether something is highly likely ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, so I hesitate to agree that it is conclusively demonstrated ... that there was no primary topic with respect to usage.
In any case, WP:PTOPIC states that in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In other words, it is acceptable to regard a topic as PTOPIC even if it meets only one aspect of PTOPIC. In the RM discussion, no editor suggested that some other topic other than the maritime topic may be the PTOPIC for "dock". Hence, if there is rough consensus in an RM discussion that a topic is primary with respect to long-term significance, the discussion can appropriately be closed as move.
Leaning endorse (involved) I weakly opposed to the move based on page views and I agree the part of the close of "5-2 in support of the move" may appear like its vote counting but they clearly based this on the long-term significance which I think was valid though perhaps weak, note actually that its 6-2 in support as the nom counts unless they state otherwise as a "support" !vote. This is similar to the Howl move review last month except that this was to primary topic but there was a larger margin and while this could also have been "no consensus" based on views and the counter points of long-term significance I think the close was reasonable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I treat this as 5-2 because I exclude Dohn joe's retracted support. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that, struck my own comment here, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Calidum 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Consensus is clear on long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and trout as uninvolved. That was a terrible close. Consensus is not decided by numbers. Closer, please read WP:NOTAVOTE. ... ... However, the result itself is correct. RedSlash 17:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Consensus was pretty clear here. And I have no issues with a closer noting in the closing statement what the vote count is when it is also accompanied by the underlying policy justification that was used for the move. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not neutral here: I'm almost the only one who opposed the RM, and my complaint about the close was what nudged the closer into starting this move review. I'm finding it all very baffling. I know many RM regulars don't burden themselves with the onus of reading the discussion before voting, and closers everywhere will almost always avoid outcomes that don't match the arithmetic average of the votes, but still... Am I taking WP:NOTAVOTE too seriously and expecting discussion outcomes to at least partially be based solely on an evaluation of the arguments made? And what does "5:2" mean when 3 of the 5 are the sort of vote that wouldn't normally be taken into account. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with statements consisting entirely of "Support, looks alright": if all comments are like that, then the case is obvious enough for discussion to be unnecessary. But once some more substantial argument has been made to the contrary, then votes that don't address the issues raised there should be irrelevant to the close. Two of the supporters engaged with those issues, one eventually decided to rescind their support as a result, while the other made a counterargument about words in Britain vs. elsewhere, which was essentially an inference about usage, but that is irrelevant because the actual usage data was already presented and it did not lend support to the proposal. The one remaining participant counted in the support column was the nominator, and their argument was of a type that's deprecated by the guidelines (historic age and etymology), and that was largely irrelevant in the context (the main other competing topic had comparable antiquity). I don't know, maybe I am hopelessly biased here and I can't see the deep wisdom hidden in "Support per nom"? I don't even know why I'm writing this now. No-one is going to read it – the MRV is obviously going to get closed with something like "6:1 in favour of endorsing", and hardly anyone can be expected to either have a think about the soul-crushing complacency of the RM venue's culture, or else to take the time to point out what misapprehensions I might be labouring under. – Uanfala (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who has been on this site long enough has been through this in one form or another, Uanfala. It's like being a single voice in a dark forest. The other involved editors, like you, were pretty experienced here, so we see the gathering storm engulfing us at times. Try not to be too staggered, and if I know anything about you it's that you're tenacious and a bounce-backer. Sincerely hope that doesn't sound patronizing, because I don't mean to be. You and I haven't always agreed about things, but I do revere your opinions. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 15:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go to bat for the right of editors to write "support per nom". What do you expect editors to do if they agree with a well-reasoned nomination?... Is this a freshman English class, where we have to find passages and rewrite them in our own words? It seems a bit much to expect that of editors. If Bob writes a great move request and I assent with it, my saying "support per nom" is completely valid and a strong step towards establishing a consensus for Bob's view. It should be taken as such. RedSlash 05:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleasantly surprised by the responses above, thank you both! I would like to just respond to the "support per nom" question. Counting heads may be applicable sometimes, but if closing of a discussion is indeed meant to consist in an evaluation of the arguments, then it doesn't matter how many people lined up to support each argument (whether with a naked vote, or by restating or paraphrasing the arguments). Right? In practice, the issue I have is more with support-per-noms where the nom's argument has been countered and a stronger argument presented against the proposal. If I were the closer of such a discussion, then I'd ignore any support-per-noms that don't address those arguments. – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying. I understand! I suppose my disposition is more "let's look at what the consensus is", not "are there any outstanding arguments that have not been refuted." If the nom says "look, this is obviously primary topic, look at these sources, look at this data" and someone says "oppose, this isn't consistent with our normal naming practices", to me "support per the nom's arguments" is tantamount to saying "I believe that the arguments proposed by the nominator are more relevant than the arguments proposed by the opposers". I don't want to play a game where if you don't say those magic words, your opinion is discounted. RedSlash 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. This argument that "support per nom" is invalid and should be discounted by the closer because every supporter should have to trot out the same arguments in slightly different words is regularly put forward by those on the "losing" side and remains ridiculous. It's simply shorthand for an editor completely agreeing with the proposer and not being persuaded by opposing arguments. Same with pointing to WP:OUTCOMES at AfD: simple shorthand for "I completely agree with the consensus established in previous AfDs". -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved), with the same reasoning as presented in the Discord discussion - neither "long term significance" or "usage" should be given additional weight, meaning that this consensus is clear as the arguments are equally strong but the level of support - the number of editors convinced by each argument - is not. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
In the case of the first proposed move (the album), the nom and 4 participants supported a move to The In Between (album) with one user opposed, but the closer determined there was consensus to move instead to The In Between (Booker Ervin album) as favored by this other user, apparently due to the perceived need for disambiguation with The In-Between (musical)#Concept album. However, the redirect The In Between (album) still targets the Booker Ervin page, defeating the attempt at disambiguation. Subsequently, the closer nominated the musical article for deletion which if it were to result in deletion (as the discussion is trending thus far) would render this issue moot.
For the second move regarding moving the film article to the base name (whether the film is now the primary topic), the nom and 2 participants supported the move, 2 participants were neutral, and one participant opposed the move. Again, as the closer states in the closing statement, the closer followed the suggestion of the single participant who was opposed to the move as proposed. I suggest there was sufficient support for the move as originally proposed. Failing that, however, the close should have resulted in "no consensus" which would have resulted in the article remaining at The In Between (film) until further discussion determines otherwise. Instead, the closer unnecessarily interjected their own judgment and made moves in an effort at more extensive disambiguation. The closer then decided to keep the resulting redirect The In Between (film) targeting the 2022 film, again defeating the attempt at disambiguation. If there is to be no primary topic, either there is a single film with the base name and (in this case) the article for the film should be at The In Between (film) as it was, or there is more than 1 film that needs to be disambiguated, and "The In Between (film)" should target the disambiguation page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The closer also decided against other options such as relisting the discussion, joining the discussion, or leaving the discussion open for another closer to evaluate.
The closer did not tag their close with {{RMnac}} or {{RMpmc}} as directed by WP:RMCI.
OverturnWP:Supervote. The close is too much of the closer's opinion and too little citation of the points made in the discussion, for an obviously edge-close. The tendency for supervote closes needs to be nipped on every occasion, or the entire RM process loses its respect. Any closer who feels the need to include "Should anyone disagree, feel free to open a RM" (RM(sic) for MR) should not be closing, that is absolutely the wrong approach. The closer should be confident that their close if of such quality that it will be broadly supported if challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convert the closer's supervote to a !vote and relist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close reflects a correct reading of the discussion. In ictu oculi made the persuasive argument the first move from (album) to (Booker Ervin album) is correct in the discussion. There was also no consensus the film should have been the stand-alone article. Good close. SportingFlyerT·C 10:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A surprising amount of ink has been spilled on this since I posted this comment, but I still think it's correct. I don't agree this was a supervote but rather a nuanced reading of a difficult discussion that went beyond just the bolded quotes. I went back and re-read and still think it's a good close. SportingFlyerT·C 00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to move as proposed (uninvolved). The close is a WP:SUPERVOTE in favor of a solution endorsed by exactly one participant in the requested move, despite the strong support for the proposal. The closer also misinterpreted WP:NOGOODOPTIONS; NGO does not give a closer discretion to haphazardly pick from any option presented in the RM. No need to relist here given the length of time the RM was open and the support the proposal gathered. Calidum 20:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, the closer endorsed the opinion of exactly one participant and apparently ignored (made no mention of) any of the arguments of the other four participants (including nom), including the argument made by Yours Truly refuting the argument of the one participant the closer endorsed, and especially all of the arguments pointing out why the topic was primary, and why SMALLDETAILS was irrelevant to a primary topic title.
This was a clear case of a SUPERVOTE. Invoking NOGOODOPTIONS was baseless. And even if, for the sake of argument, we agree there was no clear consensus, there is no denying which way it was leaning, and NOGOODOPTIONS is not a license to go directly against that.
Refusal by the closer to relist after three users (including an uninvolved admin) pointed all this out and requested they relist on their talk page is not collegial. An NAC controversial close is already pushing the limits, but the community tolerates and even appreciates such closes when they are done well. However, if any NAC close is challenged, especially by three users including an uninvolved admin, the closer should immediately revert and relist. --В²C☎ 01:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse SmokeyJoe's point: any closer needs to clearly explain why they are going against the clear consensus or plurality of opinion, but especially a non-admin closer. Simply declaring "no consensus" without basis and invoking NOGOODOPTIONS to justify a SUPERVOTE is not that. Closers need to know this is not acceptable.
From closer: I apologize for belated responding; it was due to unforeseen real-life circumstances. The next time I got to my talk page, this MR got already opened, so at this point it's best to let it run its course. While I acknowledge criticism, and appreciate different opinions about a tricky RM, I still do not think there was a solid enough consensus to move the film to the base title The In Between. While not directly opposing, there were concerns that this move proposal reeks of recency biasneutral 2nd, redirect to In Between as no primary topic. and leaning support for the original proposal. ... But I do think it's a sort of borderline case, and would still support dabifying as a second choice. as well as straight Oppose new film becoming primary topic - minor streaming film,. While pageviews do heavily favor the 2022 film, it's all too natural for a fresh streaming-service release. As for the choice of final title, I quoted NOGOODOPTIONS for my choice to move the film to The In Between (2022 film); at no point I claimed that was the consensus title, and it only comes from the conclusion (that one may reasonably dispute) that there is no primary topic. An element of supervote I did made is in rejecting WP:SMALLDETAILS arguments that The In Between is sufficiently different from In Between to warrant a separate primary topic status. No such user (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At your page you responded to requests from two of us to reconsider before this MR was started. You could have easily have chosen to revert/relist. Despite being informed you’d be forcing the community to go the MR route, you refused. Real-life circumstances notwithstanding, we are here due solely to your preferences and choices.
At the RM, three of us including the nom clearly supported primary topic recognition. Yes, a recentism concern was mentioned, but the nom addressed it, and nobody countered. A closer should know recentism is not listed as a factor to consider at either WP:AT nor WP:D, and, to the contrary, WP:NAMECHANGES cites WP:CRYSTAL, advising following current known usage. One of the opposers opposed based on page view numbers which were shown to be way off. Again, nobody countered. The final oppose was shown to be based on pure JDLI, and this too was not countered. It is the job of the closer to discount the weight of such weak arguments accordingly, not endorse them. —В²C☎ 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a court of law, is it? I'm not here to "win" or "lose", this is supposed to be a friendly exchange of arguments. Re: "A closer should know recentism is not listed as a factor to consider at either WP:AT" – on the contrary, WP:AT states that A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic, emphasis mine. I don't see how is NAMECHANGES relevant for that. If we would only go after pageviews only (PTOPIC#1), then we'd have to reshuffle our titles every time a new hot song, videogame or film pops out. That is what people referred to as "recentism", and this is the crux here. In this particular case, we don't have crystal ball indeed to know whether the film will have enduring notability over other topics, but I gave more weight to the conservative views advocating "let's wait and see" approach. I don't think there's anything JDLI in such views. No such user (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Friendly exchange. The underlying principle cited in NAMECHANGES, recognizing CRYSTAL, is relevant here. Regarding long-term significance, it’s not applicable in this case, because, as I noted in the RM, which was not challenged and you ignored, “historical significance is not a distinguisher” in this case. Imagine a case in which a number of topics share an ambiguous name, all have comparable page views, but one is centuries old and the others are relatively new. In that case page views would be N/A, and long term significance would indicate the primary topic. Clearly. That would be the opposite of this case. All topics here are indistinguishable by long-term significance, but one is clear stand out by page views. The recentism point might have some applicability if the other uses had ever experienced comparable page views to this new film, but that’s not the case either. There is simply no indication other than this topic is much more likely to be sought than all the others combined, at least for the foreseeable future. —-В²C☎ 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Moved as proposed (uninvolved). As I said earlier on the closer's user talk page, I agree with B2C and Mdewman6's arguments that the close doesn't seem to reflect the discussion. Between the three who explicitly favoured the original proposal and the other two who were neutral on the primary-topic status of the film, that's a fairly clear cut consensus to make the 2022 film the primary topic. And there is no policy or evidence argument saying it should not be so, given the very heavy lead it enjoys in page views. Indeed, with a page-view ratio that strong, it would be very rare for any topic not to be deemed the primary, all other things being equal. So the closer's citing of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS doesn't seem to be called for - there is a very good option, and that's to move the film to the base name as proposed, which also has the side bonus of making the 2019/2022 ambiguity moot. I also join Mdewman6 in questioning the decision to "I guess" redirect The In Between (film) to The In Between (2022 film). Leaving the redirect that way means that in fact the 2022 film has been deemed primary over the others, and precedent suggests that such articles should reside at the partially-disambiguated name, not be redirected from it, similar to the decision made at Talk:Thriller_(album)/Archive_7#Requested_move_4_November_2019. Finally, The In-Between (musical) has now been deleted so The In Between (Booker Ervin album) is free to move back to The In Between (album) as the only notable album with that title. "The" is certainly a good-enough disambiguator, contrary to the closing statement here, otherwise The Batman (film) would be an ambiguous title too, with all the Batman (film) entries. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on the issue of SMALLDETAILS relative to what what was said in the RM, invocation of WP:SMALLDETAILS does not mean that terms differing by only a hyphen or a "the" are different enough that they cannot be confused with each other. Absolutely there should be hatnotes on all of these articles pointing to topics with nearly identical spelling and/or a disambiguation page, which is what SMALLDETAILS says. The point, though, is that the article titles themselves are already spelled differently and do not need parenthetical disambiguation on top of that unless there are multiple films or albums with the exact spelling. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). There's clear support for moving the album away from the primary title. As for whether the newly released film is the primary topic, I see no consensus. There wasn't much in the discussion to suggest greater long-term significance (or relative "notability", as one participant put it). The argument for promoting to a primary topic rests entirely on usage, but this is severely undermined by the fact that the film has just been released. Usage matters (and I would say, it matters a lot), but only if it has been observed (rather than conjectured) to have remained stable over a long period (at least several years) after the inevitable initial spike in popularity. SMALLDETAILS was invoked a few times: the point of this guideline is to allow us to exploit small differences in titles so that we can avoid disambiguators, I don't think it can be used to completely disregard minor spelling variants when deciding on primary topics. The closer is correct about the core question (primary topic or not), but exact disambiguators to use for the album and film articles weren't discussed at any great length, and it's easy to imagine that they could have picked another option. The close shouldn't be taken as precluding an informal discussion of that, or even bold actions. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, same question as for Red Slash below… how do you see no consensus for the move to the base title with only one oppose which is not based in policy vs three supports based in policy (and two neutrals)? Regarding the recentism concern, that was directly addressed by at least nom (in comments), Colin M, and myself, all noting the other uses have never had the hits this one is getting. This point was not even addressed much less refuted. A single oppose based solely on a blatant JDLI opinion (“such a banal and common title”) arguably should be given no weight at all. How is this anything but clear consensus to move? —В²C☎ 18:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what sort of answer you expect here, I believe I've already tried to explain the reasons why I don't see consensus. But maybe I need to clarify a few probably obvious points. First, no-one gave any policy-based rationales, because no relevant policies exist: primary topics are covered in a section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which is a guideline. Second, the relevant bits of that guideline are well known, and its considerations are implicit in much of the discussion; explicitly linking to a guideline doesn't make a statement count for more. Third, discussions aren't votes, but if the distribution of opinions is to be taken into account, then it's worth pointing out that the one editor to explicitly oppose wasn't the only one to doubt the long-term significance. – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s common in RM discussions to refer to any guideline that is backed by community consensus as “policy”, and that’s what I meant by it. Just because D is a guideline doesn’t mean references to a section within it don’t have the weight of the community behind it. Such references deserve to be weighted accordingly when consensus is determined. Yes, more than one mentioned the recentism concern, but, again, in the end only one opposed moving the film to the base name; three supported and two were neutral. Are you ignoring their explicit neutral !votes and counting them as opposed in determining there was no consensus? That would be misreading consensus. And of course a reference to a policy or guideline doesn’t have to explicitly tag it to “count”, but language has to at least implicitly refer to it, and the single oppose didn’t even do that. It was pure JDLI. Are you giving it weight against consensus to move nevertheless? That too would be misreading consensus. I appreciate your two attempts to show how you found no consensus for this move, but to me it looks like a simple misreading. —В²C☎ 08:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the close for the second move (the movie) was "no consensus" we wouldn't be here, I would have accepted there being no primary topic, which is an improvement over the album being the primary topic, the article about the film would by default have been left at The In Between (film), and I would have started another RM in the future when more page view history became available. But instead, the close was disambiguate, favored by only 1 of the 6 participants (with no participants explicitly having voted "disambiguate"). I strongly agree there was "strong support for moving the album away from the primary title", so why didn't the closer just do that as proposed, rather than move to an alternative favored by a single participant? This was a supervote; if the closer so strongly favored the viewpoint of the user they name in their close, they should have joined the discussion rather than have closed it. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I get the distinction here. If there is no consensus for promoting the film as a primary topic, then this means the primary title will be a disambiguation page. There is a distinction between "consensus against a PT" and "no consensus for a PT", but both would result in disambiguating here. As for the move The In Between (film) -> The In Between (2022 film), that's not so much an outcome of the discussion as a (semi-)bold move by the closer, and they could have made that fact clearer. If there's anything stopping people from moving the film back, that's not the RM close, but the film naming conventions (at least if my reading of WP:PRIMARYFILM is correct). Similarly for the album: only one participant commented on the choice of disambiguator, so it's natural the closer went with that. If I'm not mistaken, the choice to disambiguate by artist was because of the musical (and its album) by the same name, but the article got deleted afterwards, so that consideration is gone. The only thing standing in the way of a move to The In Between (album) is the preference of one editor (the closer) for not relying only on the term "the" for distinguishing this album from the albums titled "In Between". – Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's more or less it, setting aside for the moment whether the 2022 film is the primary topic or not, if the finding is that it is not, then instead of a simple "no consensus" close for the second proposed move, the closer unnecessarily went beyond the scope of the RM proposal and, as stated, decided that more than just the album and film needed to be disambiguated. If the album article was simply moved to The In Between (album) for which there was strong consensus, and if the 2022 film were left at The In Between (film), that would at least be a defensible close. But that is not what happened. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as uninvolved. It's an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of consensus to move the movie. I would've relisted, personally, but the close was reasonable. I wish the person who listed this for MRV would've just followed the advice of the closer to file a new request. I will say this: trout No Such User for not including the RMNAC tag. We all make mistakes, of course - which is why we have the trout. RedSlash 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash, can you explain how you see lack of consensus to move the movie to the base title? It’s a bit obscure but in the end only one opposed against three supports (including nom) and two neutrals. More importantly, the nom and supports were based in policy, the oppose, not. —В²C☎ 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
В²C, my respected colleague, I think that messy requested moves are antithetical to good, clear decisions. This discussion, to me, was a messy one. I would have relisted, sure, but if I had a gun pointed to my head and were forced to close the discussion, I would've done the exact some thing as No such user. When a move request is messy, move the part everyone agrees on, and then ask people to just repropose it with the limited part that's more controversial. Clear, simple move requests are best. I dare to add this: if the person who posted this move review would've just followed the advice of the closer, the RM would've closed by now and the article would already be at the desired location. RedSlash 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer did move the part that everyone agreed on, but moved it to the place favored by only 1 participant. For at least this reason, the close was wrong and that's why we're here. We shouldn't need an RM do-over because of an overreaching close. Subsequent RMs should be to refine consensus or lack thereof, not to "try again" after a bad close. If I had just boldly moved the album away from the base name, which had been the primary topic by default for years, and moved the film to the base name, I doubt anyone would have objected. But I erred on the side of an RM, and here we are. The process failed in this case, so let's at least get it right in the end, even if it takes far longer than should be logically necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to "lack of consensus to move the movie", the problem is the movie was moved; it was moved to a title favored by only 1 of the 6 participants. The close was not no consensus, it was something else entirely. As I noted above, if the finding of the closer was "no consensus" we wouldn't be here. To say the close correctly found no consensus is a misreading of the closing summary. As for using RMNAC, the closer made clear this was an intentional omission in discussion on their talk page. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is ... alarming. It appears we have a fundamental disagreement on that. I revoke the trout and instead suggest that if @No such user: wishes to disagree with our closing procedures, that No such user instead start a discussion at the talk page for WP:RM (or WP:RMCI). Come on, bruh. RedSlash 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Red Slash, sure, the RM was a bit messy (I’ve seen much worse), but that’s no excuse to be sloppy. With a bit of effort the bottom line can be gleaned from the mess: three favored the move of the film to the base name, based on primary topic, one opposed, based on JDLI, and two were neutral. That’s clear consensus by any reasonable measure, no? The reason for the MR is to get consensus that this was an unreasonable SUPERVOTE close. However, given others including you are misreading that consensus too, I’m thinking it was a simple misread of a messy discussion. An innocent mistake, but a mistake nevertheless. Let’s correct it, shall we? —В²C☎ 20:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. <uninvolved> So sorry, more later, gotta go. Okay, we back. Perhaps rough around the edges and a bit unusual, this closure was not unreasonable. It was closed under WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, which is crystal clear what the next step should be. Procedurally close, because MRV is not an option. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there12:32, & 16:10, 23 March 2022 07:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going with the views of one lone participant, when the views of the majority are clearly defensible and in line with guidelines actually is unreasonable. There's simply no way to get around this. It's not enough to just say it's "rough around the edges" and move on, if you think it was the right close you have to say why. There are borderline closes out there, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt where appropriate, but here there just isn't any doubt. The wrong conclusion was reached. — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very sorry, been a bit busy lately so please forgive me if my rationales are more abrupt. For Mdewman6, this happens sometimes, where I'll take a preliminary look, come to one conclusion, then do a more in-depth analysis only to find myself in a different camp. Much of this has to do with my knowledge of the closer's experience and his usual careful effort to determine consensus. This was a tough call, so it makes sense to me to give the closure the benefit of any doubt that may remain after scrutiny of its details. Without going into rearguing the RM and repeating the points made by the closer here and on his talk page, my conclusion is that his closure of this move request was reasonable. Truth be told, I've often found myself siding with consensus against In ictu oculi's viewpoint, especially when their's is the lone voice in the wilderness; however, the closer found enough merit in In ictu oculi's rationale to raise it above the other voices in the survey, and that's really why we're here, isn't it? P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 23:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Paine Ellsworth, but I'm baffled by your response here. Since the nom and now you have placed so much weight on IIO's viewpoint, I think it warrants a close analysis. Shall we? First, he says: "Nothing notable anywhere." I address this directly in the RM. What the heck does that even mean? If it's not notable, it doesn't deserve an article. Each topic has an article, therefore they are notable, by definition. Okay, next: "Minor entertainment articles." Okay, but so what? Nothing in primary topic says it doesn't apply when all candidate topics are "minor" (whatever that means). What matters is likelihood of being sought relative to each other, does it not? And that's it. From this he concludes: "Move album toThe In Between (Booker Ervin album)" because "disambiguation is required as a better sourced album is all that has existed since 2012 on the never performed Broadway musical (see dab page)." The album has been the primary topic for "The In Between" for years and now it can't even be primary for a partial disambiguation? Perhaps, but don't we need a stronger argument than this? Regarding the film all he says is, "Oppose new film becoming primary topic minor streaming film ...", again with the (meaningless) "minor" and continues... "and with such a banal and common title." Banal and common? So what? If that's not JDLI, I don't know what is. And that's it! This is the compelling argument that has enough merit to "raise it above the other voices in the survey"? Come on! There is nothing of substance in it at all! Frankly, raising such pap above any other voices is insulting to the entire community. And that is why we're here. Am I missing something? Please, educate me. --В²C☎ 05:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, too, В²C, because I do feel like I misled you at first. You do seem to understand a lot about RMs and their closes; after all in many ways you authored the "book". To be clear, I may have very well closed this RM differently than it was done. It would have been more my style to disagree with the one lone voice in the wilderness and to go with the local consensus. That would have been imho the most reasonable closure. After digging deeper, though, I found myself better understanding Iio's words and better seeing what the closer saw in them. Not for anything but you are still writing and reading Iio's words from the viewpoint of a supporter in the RM, so you don't see what the closer saw. At this point it would not be a good thing for us to be drawn into reargument. Please suffice to say that I don't mean to be baffling, and I have found myself in agreement with the closer on some small level, which leads me to find his closure reasonable. Even if I'm not in complete agreement with the close, I have to conclude that the closer's decision to invoke NOGOODOPTIONS was within the bounds of good and sound reasonableness. Again, I am so sorry if this appears confounding, because that is certainly not what I mean to be. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, now I’m flabbergasted. The closer’s decision to invoke NOGOODOPTIONS was based on putting undue weight on one participant’s input. I say the weight on this opinion was undue because not only did it not reflect the opinions of any other participants, but, more importantly, it does not reflect community consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines. It’s pure pap. Therefore, not only would you have closed differently, but you would have closed differently because this close was based on a total misread. How can you endorse that? —В²C☎ 01:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just a difference of perspective. You see the closer's decision as putting undue weight on a single input. Objectively, others above to include myself see the decision as a "good close", "correct about the core question", "an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of consensus to move the movie", "reasonable" and so on. Maybe if you were to step back and reread the RM from an objective closer's perspective rather than from an involved supporter's one, then you would be able to understand. That's the hardest thing to do sometimes. Got the tee-shirt and the baseball cap. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 04:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve read it a dozen times, @Paine Ellsworth. It’s a messy RM. But no matter how many times I read it I don’t see any opposition based on policy/guidelines (implicitly as well as explicitly), except for maybe the recency concern which was addressed by proponents. More to the point, IIO’s pivotal contribution is completely devoid of reflecting any consensus-supported position, as far as I can tell. I’m open to the possibility that I’m missing something. That’s why I’m asking. What specifically in the RM supports the closer’s reading of consensus? The apparent inability or unwillingness of endorsers here to provide these specifics, despite ample opportunities to do so, only serves to strengthen the assessment that it’s simply not there. I urge the closer of this review to weight the Endorsements here accordingly. --В²C☎ 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I think the closer of this review should and will weigh: the fact that this review should never have been opened in the first place. It is a waste of time to open a move review when a move request has been closed under NOGOODOPTIONS and the RM closer has explicitly mentioned in their closing statement, "Should anyone disagree, feel free to open a RM." Instead of wasting time with this review, all that had to be done was to open a fresh RM. That is what the closer of this review will also take under consideration. Whether or not you or the nom or anyone else disagrees with the RM closer's choice of NOGOODOPTIONS, the fact remains that is how the RM was closed. Technically, a move review such as this should be procedurally closed, and it is subject to such closure immediately after it is opened. Since I no longer want to waste your time, I'm done here. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 07:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that any move review regarding an RM that was closed involving NOGOODOPTIONS should be procedurally closed, implying it is procedurally incorrect, is ludicrous. NOGOODOPTIONS is intended to apply in rare instances where the participants are expressly against the status quo but cannot agree on a new title, which is far from the case here. It is not a license for a closer to do whatever they think best with the expectation that the nominator will simply try again with another RM and avoid a move review. If that were true, the RM process would simply implode. If NOGOODOPTIONS were validly invoked, a second RM would be appropriate. But that was not the case here, and that is why we are at MR. All that more baffling is your implication of MR being the logical next step when you first reviewed this RM. One can change their opinion after further scrutiny, sure, but don't come back around and question the nom's intentions when they were in agreement with your views at the time. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, NOGOODOPTIONS was only implicated in the second proposed move (the movie). The first move (the album) was simply a supervote to follow the suggestion of one participant instead of moving to the originally proposed title as supported by the nom and other 4 particpants. That is most definitely reviewable at MR. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you drew me back in. NOGOODOPTIONS applies to the closure of the RM in its entirety. The closer AND the closure were explicit just like NOGOODOPTIONS is explicit! All you had to do was open a new RM. As long as your new RM does not propose moving back to the old titles, as long as your new RM proposes different titles (or even just one different title), then that's all you had to do! That's why bringing this here is such a waste of good time. You can see by the results so far that editors disagree with you. I think I've seen your better half, В²C, present this same argument to other editors under similar circumstances, which is why I'm baffled. I can't understand what the diff is. В²C knows this is a waste of time; В²C knows that all that was needed was a new RM. It's an enigma! P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 11:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, MR is the main opportunity the community has to rebuke closers for inappropriate closes. This is how we notify closers who are out of line that they need to reign it in. That’s what needs to happen here. So that’s why it’s not a waste of time. This closer needs to know that it’s unacceptable to close per a minority argument when it does not reflect community consensus. Otherwise closers would be able to close per minority JDLI arguments left and right. You don’t want that, do you? —В²C☎ 04:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your base premise; disagree that it applies in this case. If it did actually apply here, then there would be consensus here, which there is not thus far. Hopefully that helps you see how this is thus far a huge waste of time, and that if a new RM had been started, as suggested by the closer and by NOGOODOPTIONS, instead of a move review, as specifically denied by NOGOODOPTIONS, then this could very possibly have been resolved by now. Strange you don't see that. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 05:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, perhaps there is no consensus, but there is WP:CONSENSUS. There may be no consensus because if you count the !votes, it's about even. But there is CONSENSUS because just like at the RM, one side has solid arguments, and the other doesn't. They don't count the same in determining CONSENSUS. Like I said above: "What specifically in the RM supports the closer’s reading of consensus? The apparent inability or unwillingness of endorsers here to provide these specifics, despite ample opportunities to do so, only serves to strengthen the assessment that it’s simply not there. " Prove me wrong. --В²C☎ 06:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps there is no consensus, but there is consensus?" I suppose that's the only solution when we waste time running around in circles. Repetition, circular reasonings and more repeats, the very bane of agreement. This is a prime example of how consensus is evaded. If there can be no agreement, then there can be no positive action, no advancement, only quicksand. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 08:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m distinguishing dictionary-definition “consensus” from what WP:CONSENSUS means on WP. You seem to be conflating the two (correct me if I’m wrong). In any case, hopefully the closer here understands and appreciates how the distinction plays a crucial role in the original RM as well as in this MR. --В²C☎ 14:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:>) Friend В²C, consider yourself corrected! :>) Was just noting a sense of irony there; call it "pseudo-irony". And now you appear to be questioning whether or not an editor who is qualified to close a move review is familiar with Wikipedia's own style of consensus? <sigh> We are a pair, aren't we. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I can only work with what you give me, and all your arguments (using the term loosely) ignore the crucial distinction. --В²C☎ 07:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate the problem with "an accurate reading of consensus to move the album and a lack of consensus to move the movie": 1) the album was not moved to the title for which there was strong consensus and instead was moved to a title for which there was no consensus, and 2) the movie was moved! It was moved because the closer incorrectly invoked NOGOODOPTIONS. A prerequisite for invocation of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS is that there is clear consensus against the current title. There is no such consensus. The title chosen wasn't even strongly supported by the user who offered it as a possibility, prefacing it with "maybe". That user's position was only to oppose the film being the primary topic, not opposition to its current title. The two users who were neutral on it becoming the primary topic also clearly had no problem with the original title. Thus, rather than seeing the consensus for the film being the primary topic, or not seeing that and having a simple "no consensus" close that would lead to a second RM, the end result is a blatant supervote by the closer that must be rectified at move review. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree, because I see what the closer saw in that there was a fairly clear consensus against what was then the current title. That gives the closer the leeway under NOGOODOPTIONS to give the film any title that has been suggested in the survey and discussion. The closer chose a title and then was explicit as to there being no prejudice and a new RM could be opened at any time, immediately if you like. That means that we shouldn't even be here. It should be noted that whenever NOGOODOPTIONS is invoked, the closing statement automatically becomes a "blatant supervote". There is no way around that. It is certainly no good reason to open a move review against the specific instructions at NOGOODOPTIONS. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only users who held positions against the original title were those in favor of moving to the base name as the primary topic, so if that was sufficient for there to be consensus against the original title, then there was consensus for the move as proposed! There was simply no basis for invoking NOGOODOPTIONS. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the whole story. I think you're right about the consensus to move away from the then current title, but let's see what happens next. You opened your request and, at that time, there was consensus to rename the film to the base name – a consensus of one. After the two film-name neutrals, still a consensus of one to move away from the current title. While they were neutral, there was still talk of recency bias and no primary topic, which did not change even after a fair rebuttal. At that point the consensus that existed to move the film to the base name was whittled down a bit. After the neutrals and rebuttals came a comment that questioned the film's notability and for the second time whether or not the film was the primary topic. Comes an editor who at first agreed with neutrality, then struck that to give a "leaning support", thus again strengthening your consensus. The next editor opposed the film as primary topic, thereby weakening your consensus as well as suggesting a different disambiguation for the film. As if their opinion meant nothing, another editor chimes in first with daggers to the heart of that editor's rationale, and then with more support for your proposal. It's at this point where we must stop, smell the roses [...], and make an objective closer's choice. Looking back we see a clear consensus to move away from the then current title. Yet with strong words about recentism and much argument for and against the film as primary topic, we do not see any but (perhaps) the roughest consensus at best, no consensus more likely, to move the film to primary status as you initially proposed. That is what I see, and I think that is pretty much what the closer saw where the film's title was concerned. I can lead you to the close, but I can't make you agree. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
..."no consensus more likely, to move the film to primary status..." If that's the case, the close should have been no consensus! Any other conclusion is contrary to WP:RMCI. Like I said above, a close of no consensus for the second proposed move would have been reasonable in my view (as would a close of moved as proposed). A close of no consensus would have resulted in the film being left at The In Between (film). But neither of those reasonable interpretations was the close! There were two good options, both of which are common results of RMs per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading what I wrote. Really, I do appreciate it. I think you understood it, or most of it at least. There was as said pretty likely no consensus; however, because of the other side of the coin, because of the fact that there was agreement/consensus that the old title should be changed, that made it indeed unreasonable to leave the title at "The In Between (film)". The "no consensus" applies to both your proposed title and to any other title proposed, just as the closer indicated. From the guide, that I prefer to call OTHEROPTIONS: ...there are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. That is what the closer followed. That is why even though there was no consensus, the title had to be moved. In these rare instances the closer must !supervote and choose a title, usually an interim title. It was much like I had to do recently in this move request. Note that my closure was also taken to Move review last month, so as much as I say that time is wasted, you are still in good company. Thanks again for your effort to understand this rare and very disturbing type of closure!P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how NOGOODOPTIONS aka OTHEROPTIONS works...I am not claiming it is never valid. I believe I actually invoked it in one of my closes too (though I have far less closing experience that you, and I generally close only clear-cut discussions). So I understand what you're saying and your point of view, but as you say, I guess we just disagree. The only way I see for there to have been consensus against the original title were there to have been consensus for making it the primary topic, meaning the close should have just been moved. The two neutrals and the opposer were not explicitly against the original title, so there just wasn't consensus against it. I don't see how one concludes there are virtually no good arguments for it to stay at its original title: there is a good argument for it to stay at its current title, that being if there is no primary topic, "(film)" is concise and sufficient to disambiguate it from the album, and similarly spelled films are already disambiguated via SMALLDETAILS. Now, one can disagree with the application of SMALLDETAILS, but it's still a reasonable argument for the original title being valid, so it doesn't meet the OTHEROPTIONS threshold and can't trigger it. OTHEROPTIONS certainly doesn't come into play for the first proposed move (of the album), where the argument was that the Booker Ervin album did not need to be disambiguated from a soundtrack of an unreleased musical described in a section of an article for which there were no redirects, an argument strengthened by the fact that the musical article was subsequently deleted due to the closer's own nomination, and the album article should have been moved to the title as proposed, for which there was strong support with only 1 participant opposed. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The album decision was very tricky, yes, and I agree that there was stronger support for your proposed rename to The In Between (album), and that support bothered me. Maybe it bothered the closer, too? There are several albums on the dab page, and while you invoked SMALLDETAILS, in this case I would have been more likely to move to the better qualified title, The In Between (Booker Ervin album), and then retarget (album) to the dab page section on albums. That part bothers me since, as you say, (album) still targets (Booker Ervin album), which I think is in error. Easily fixed, though. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 00:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The simple explanation is, I simply forgot about The In Between (album) while shuffling around all articles and redirects involved. I agree it should be retargeted to the dab page. No such user (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to "move as proposed". There was no consensus for getting "In Between" (dab) involved in this. Only one person seemed to support that and the basis for that !vote (that none of this is hugely important) isn't based in policy and it just makes things more confusing. If someone types "The In Between" into the search box, they really are likely to want the "the". I thought about closing this, but the result would have to be "no consensus to overturn" given the !votes. And that's just the wrong outcome. Further, the arguments for doing the move, while based in recentism, seem to be holding up months later. Doesn't mean they will forever, but it seems to be the right outcome (and the closest thing to consensus the RM had). Hobit (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Discussion without a clear outcome closed by inexperienced (<500 edits and 6 weeks of tenure) editor, in violation of WP:RMNAC, without comment. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 02:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as participant. The closing seems fair, each side has its point of view acknowledged, however quietly and concisely. The closer has almost 500 edits, a pretty good number on average, and has been around long enough to recognize and put an obvious and lingering no consensus discussion out to pasture. Per WP:RMNAC: "The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." - this RM merge discussion was up for 40 days (and 40 nights) and the last comment was almost four weeks in the past. In fact, we should thank the closer for stepping up and locking this one down. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't actually a requested move: although the closer strangely used Template:RM top, the discussion was clearly a merge discussion and it was never listed at WP:RM. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, going to WP:AN would probably be the best choice procedurally, and it'll likely also get you quicker responses than this lower-profile forum. (Sorry to play pin-the-tail-on-the-noticeboard.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
